Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 23

< 22 October	24 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of very light jet operators

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the time this list was created, it may have been useful, but with an explosion of very light jet types )and the industry frantically trying to disassociate itself from the term following the Eclipse Aviation fiasco), this has the potential to become a ridiculously large list. Do individuals count as 'VLJ operators'? And isn't this pretty much the same thing as List of airliner operators would be? A list of, say, air taxi companies would be useful, as would lists of commercial operators by type (although that last might have notability issues). This, however, is an indiscriminate list. The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indiscriminate and non-encyclopedic list as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to add any value to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; list is unmaintainable unless there is another source out there which maintains a database and doesn't mind us copy & pasting it (which I doubt). Already, if we're lucky, news of fleet changes/orders would be reflected in the operator's article and maybe the vendor/type article. I'm not optimistic that anybody wishing to update wikipedia to match some source would go find a third page too. Would a category be better? bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Admrboltz (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Kudpung (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Mantellini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Also created by User:Mantellinipedro, as the user's only edits, and reads like a CV. Rd232 ^talk 23:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about him although he has been quoted in the media. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence (and I can't locate any) that he received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's Hill Farm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on Christian remedial education org. in Georgia. Source appears to fail WP:ORG#Primary criteria. The Interior (Talk) 23:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a high school level program, and all high schools are notable. I added a 3rd party source. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if all high schools are automatically notable, so be it, although this is a pretty borderline "high school". It's basically a treatment center for 18 months maximum, where the teen-agers get high school lessons while they're there. It's accredited by the Georgia Accrediting Commission, not under "Schools" (either public or private) but under "Educational Agencies with Special Purposes". And really, someone needs to take an axe to the puffery in this article. It's a pretty blatant advertisement and most unencyclopedic. Actually, someone tried and was soon reverted by an anonymous IP [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Schools. Voceditenore (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have more precisely worded it as that all high schools are treated as notable to avoid discussing thousands of them and keeping almost all of them. A high school for troubled students is a school for special purposes, but no less a high school for that. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "special purposes", I'm querying. It's that the Georgia Accrediting Commission calls it an "Educational Agency" and does not list it under schools. Voceditenore (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The school claims that in addition to its short programs it offers year around schooling,; even offers the ACT and SAT. Even if it is not accredited in the normal sense, it seems to still be something of a legit school, even if it is not the traditional type. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there is a concern about the article being in violation of WP:NPOV because of WP:COI, that should be addressed separately. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that neither COI nor NPOV issues are relevant to a subject's notability. I was mentioning it parenthetically. I've rescued several truly dreadful COI articles (far worse than this one) from AfD. However, I'm still not convinced that every single establishment that offers high school courses of some type (including commercial "crammer schools", "wilderness therapy schools", etc.) should be treated as de facto notable. So I'm remaining neutral here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no attack on you was meant ... the COI stuff is a genuine pain in the butt because it makes it difficult to determine if there is genuine notability or if it is someone gushing over the place. For the record, I agree with you. I would have likely recommended delete, if there hadn't been a year round component that seems to be somewhat regular boarding school. I fully agree that short term schools, treatment centers, etc are not necessarily notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid organization that should find a place in Wikipedia. Some others want it deleted because they don't like the organization and its religious stance, but that is no reason for deletion. 166.128.21.158 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Dave Bolthouse[reply]

Above comment moved from Talk by The Interior (Talk) 22:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Telephone number and email address redacted by Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to make your argument based on the notability criteria. Accusing people, without strong evidence of religious bigotry is not appreciated around here. If you really think that is a problem, I urge you to initiate a discussion with that individual, and if needed, report them to an administrator for action. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tradition here is that high schools are notable, and I support that tradition. But this is not a high school. It is a treatment facility, taking in "troubled teens" for maximum of one year [2]. It does not seem to offer diplomas (that seems to me to be a key requirement for a high school) and the state school accreditation site lists it as "ungraded".[3] If it doesn't fulfill the requirements for an "automatic keep" - and I believe it doesn't - then it has to establish its notability under WP:GNG, and by that criterion it appears to be completely non-notable. The only sources found at Google and Google News are blogs (some promoting it, some slamming it), but no Reliable Sources at all. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per MelanieN, this does not qualify as a high school (and therefore as an 'automatic keep'). It's accredited as an "educational agency" not a school, is ungraded and does not offer diplomas. The fact that it administers SAT and ACT tests is irrelevant. So do American consulates overseas. That doesn't make them high schools. Given that, it needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. At the moment it clearly fails to do this. One article in a local newspaper is not enough. Willing to change my mind, if more reliable, non-trivial, independent sources are found. But I've searched pretty exhaustively and have been unable to find any. Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't support the tradition, but even if I did I'd still say delete on the basis that this isn't a school. In any event, the tradition is subservient to accepted notability standards - GNG and CORP - and this school or whatever it is fails them all.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced content should not be merged (WP:V). Also deleted the copyvio derivative work File:Omegasentinel eng.jpg. Sandstein 07:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Sentinel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is loaded with original research, it lacks reliable third person information to assert its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to List of Transformers: Energon characters. Also, I'm not seeing any original research here. --Divebomb (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No major coverage in the Wall Street Journal, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete even less notable than most (and that's saying something) this one didn't appear on the show at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Omega_Supreme#Transformers:_Energon, this character is just a variant of a character who does have an article with third party references, and should go there. Mathewignash (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a poor article with no reliable sources.80.40.144.68 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby doo 5

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, and unsourced TalkToMe_c^intelati 23:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I don't know whether the article is talking about the movie series (of which there are only two) or the TV movie series (which is unnumbered). Whatever the case we have no idea at all what the contracts of the casts are at all. The lack of title or release date sums up this was created out of thin air and message board speculation. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cast revealed that they are signed on for this film. It is apart of the tv series of movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papermariofan96 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. This film hasn't been identified as starting principal photography yet, so it shouldn't have an article of its own at this time. When more information is announced, and the film has begun shooting, the article can be re-created at that time. This article contains so little information that it's not worth changing it to a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. No sources, no confirmed information, and half the article is speculation (as the article helpfully notes itself). The only reservation about applying HAMMER is that Scooby-Doo 5 might be a reasonable name for a film, if there were a 1-4. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a crystal ball right now. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Víctor Casas Viera

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable sources independent of this artist in order to establish notability this very long standing unreferenced BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the above {{find}} searches, the subject appears to be non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search for sources came up empty. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After a full listing period the claims to notability are unverified. The discussion also raises significant doubts that those claims would establish notability in any event. The consensus is to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dotson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, possible hoax. Despite the claims made here, I can find no sources myself, and no news coverage of the person at all. Previously up for speedy deletion, but removed by the article creator. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he supposedly received platinum album awards for his work on No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom and the Offspring's Smash, neither of our articles on those albums mentions him as working on those albums. Furthermore, this article claims his recording studio closed in 1992, but that was before either of those albums was recorded. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not assert he won awards through his closed studio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very least, the article is confusing. "Jim Dotson produced many up and coming Orange County Bands including The Offspring (I'll Be Waiting/Blackball), No Doubt, Tabitha's Secret, Bill Ward (musician), Warren Fitzgerald and The Vandals. The studio closed it's doors in 1992 but the legendary bands and musicians that worked there live on." The implication is that he did his work for the Offspring and No Doubt, among others, before 1992, but that was before either band's big album was recorded. Maybe he was given platinum album awards for working with those bands earlier in their careers (i.e. not on Tragic Kingdom or Smash), or maybe the situation is something else that I haven't even thought of. But with no detail provided and no sources, I don't know how we can evaluate these claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NOT a hoax, as this individual does exist,[4] and certain record company websites acknowledge his participation. If his awards can be sourced, he may squeeze in under WP:ANYBIO. But yes... commonality of name does add to difficulty. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. His getting a platinum record is the equivalent of the fitness coach getting a championship ring. He is a non-notable cog in a notable machine. Everyone who worked on the project received a record, but that doesn't mean that they are all notable. ANYBIO is a catch for notable people in niche fields that don't have their own notability guidelines. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protiti

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A little magazine with many literal writings being promoted by its sub-editor. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This should have been speedied. A completely non-notable magazine, even in its local city. Fails all sorts of WP:N criteria. --Ragib (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Wilson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources cited here are all book reviews. The article is supposed to be about the author, not the book. Couldn't find anything better in my own search. Appears to fail the notability guideline for authors. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious PR site written by SPA editor. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, no sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly promotional. --Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion + clear consensus Favonian (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Josephs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable as per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS CET^TALK 20:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Article has been translated from another edition, which contains more Informations about the reaction of the internet community which makes the issue interessting. The arrest of Courtney Winkels is not so interessting, but the case has caused a hughe series of discussions in the internet, including a lawsuit and many Media Reports about the case and the Discussion itself. The bad thing about the article is, that he doesn't mention these things. The article has been created by a bad translator or a normal translation programme, however, it's been in a terrible state.

In brief, the problem is that the article does only mention the arrest, but not the turmoil it caused and which makes the issue relevant. The few things, which are mentioned in this article do really look like simple news, but the issue goes beyoud that.

CharlieEchoTange has claimed, that this article was written as a hate page. This is completely wrong. The german version of this article has been written by at least three senior editors, there have never been any attempts to publish threats or something like this. As already mentioned, this article is a bad translation. The german Edition inculdes more Informations, especially those about the things which make the subject relevant. I can supply them if they are needed. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment:Nothing said about threats, only "attack page" meaning consistent POV and negative bias. CSD was declined. As for "news", I don't think it is a notable event, although some media outlets published the story, it is carried out and amplified mostly by groups with strong political objectives, hence the current lawsuit. I also think that WP should be very careful with this BLP as a lawsuit is carried out specifically targetting internet coverage of this "event". CET^TALK 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also written this in the articles discussion, but the article itself seems to look as if was making Josephs look bad because of its bad quality. The article does only mention the arrest, but there has been a major media response to this issue also in non-english media which makes the issue relevant, allong with the response of the internet community. As you seem to fear the terrible censorship of the lawyers guild: Josephs has filled lawsuits against persons who harassed him or made him look like a fool with some animations. The article is bad, but its not bad in this way, so I do not see any problems. I have seen persons who wanted to take wikimedia to court (due to the laws in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, the project can not be taken to court, just the editor) and these cases were really differnt. In brief we are on the safe side if we do use references. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fits WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." NW (Talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to state again, that this is a failure of the article, but not the issue. The article is in fact really bad. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, which is not a failure of the article: however you write the article, this man is famous only because of this single incident. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is a trivial incident of no long-term importance. In so far as coverage is continuing, it is because it is being pumped up for partisan purposes. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid any missunderstandings: I did not commit that terrible translation. And compared to the materials I found its somehow really bad, as it does not state why Jospehs should be relevant. It does not cover the discussion about the incident, which has been coverd by media all over the world (I just googled ist). The main problem is the bad quality, so the article would need a major review. Writing the thing again or somewhere else would not be more work, so this article could be deleted, as I have collected some material about the thing I could look after it for example in the articel about the G20-Summits as User:CharlieDeltaEcho suggested. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This single incident that this person is known for is not a notable event. If you look at the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests wikipedia page, it wasn't considered notable enough within the larger protest to be mentioned. Even a few months after this protest, there doesn't seem to be any longterm historical context for this video (other than getting a number of hits on YouTube).DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because some internet yahoos are making this constable a whipping boy for the events of the G20 summit protests does not make him WP material. As there is no other information I could find on this person, BLP issues alone make this a non-starter for an article. I thought it was a clear WP:G10, myself. Bielle (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Sharma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod and main author keeps removing BLP prod templates. The only "reference" is to a business directory that doesn't mention the name of the person the article is about. I can find no reliable sources suggesting this individual is notable in the slightest... QU ^TalkQu 21:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, not notable, also I have warned the author of this article.Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 21:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What an unsalvageable mess. No notability for starters, and since the rest is just icing without the notability, I won't bother listing the other 17 issues here. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. A Google search returned a college student who happens to own his own website because he's a computer programming student. English is terrible, using non-standard capitalization and punctuation. I keep putting templates on, and they keep getting removed. Revision history is a mess, because this author doesn't preview his own work. Information is uncited and impossible to verify. Author's profile is a direct reference to this article(Entire text of userspace is "Aditya Sharma") Matthewrbowker (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 County Down helicopter crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not the news. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, take this to Wikinews. Also, no evidence of notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with MickMacNee and Sven that this doesn't belong here, and I can't forsee any way that this would have historic significance. Further breaking news edits can go to Wikinews here [5] (and it looks like the article's author has made at least one contribution to the edit). Unfortunately, every day is filled with tragedies where four people or more are killed, these being the most recent: [6]. Mandsford 00:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any Wikinotable people are involved. The aircraft is an Agusta A109 according to Pprune, which does not put it into the "over 5,700 kg MTOW (large helicopter)" category. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note No Wiki-notable people involved. Charles Stisted being a friend of Prince Charles does not notability confer. The Ian Wooldridge that was killed is not the wikinotable person of that name. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability, tragic but just another helicopter accident. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The level of notability used for air accidents seems to be a bit random. All of these have third-party media coverage, but I can't see a clear pattern for that does and doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS. I don't want to go down the route of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but would it beneficial to have a proper discussion of how much coverage we expect for an air accident to be considered notable? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies are described in WP:EVENT ("An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.") and WP:NOTNEWS ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.") When it comes to recent events, obviously, one has to go by their own assessment of whether it's likely that an event will be receiving coverage that persists over a period of time, or whether it's likely that it will have "enduring notability". People tend to go by their own experience with other events when it comes to making that assessment of likelihood. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, one of which would be to not allow any event to get an article until after a waiting period, or keeping all articles on the chance, no matter how unrealistic, that it will stand the test of time. There is a tendency for people to want to be the very first to write an article about the most recent "breaking news" that they pick up on their television, which is described in WP:RECENT. I think this is one of those cases. I'll be happy to consider any argument as to why this event would be historically significant. Mandsford 23:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this moment it is just a news item, without any sign of enduring notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novelguide

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined for CSD-A7, requesting deletion as it is not notable. Dusti^*poke* 20:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Co-nom per IRC. Don't believe this meets requirement for inclusion. Article is short, and appears to be an orphan. AndrewN ^talk 21:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d: as nom as nom Dusti^*poke* 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article as there are many links to it from here on wikipedia in other peoples articles. Also the site has a lot of references in google books. Last point... I saw that microsoft has it as a "top 14 web site" for students. AbbyWaters (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website with no significant sources, just listings in directories and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going back-and-forth over this. I see now that others agree with my initial assessment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be useful, but largely non-notable. Not to mention that it's overly promotional and has been spammed on Wikipedia. (the site itself) Netalarm^talk 02:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The producers on Broadway of "Inherit the Wind" used the site's material and put a "thank you" in it's Playbill with reference to Novelguide. I've added this fact to the article. Everyone who went to the play saw the study material and saw that it was from Novelguide. This is where I first became aware of the site.... Sounds notable to me. Please tell me what I'm missing or reconsider the delete... AbbyWaters (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no evidence of notability; the producers may have paid for that insertion, or been reimbursed for the use of their materials by the "product placement." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To touch on the topic of notable, I added to the article that the Jefferson county public library recommends this novelguide site. Jefferson has a population of over 500,000 AbbyWaters (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one step above "this book is notable because it's in my local library"; not evidence of notability in any way. Please, please read WP:N more closely. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm looking at articles here on wikipedia that have issues like we are discussing here. I found one where the topic go lots of brief metion but in a seemingly trivial fashion. Here's the link to a discussion for the Hitler's dog article. There was a debate as to if a lot of brief mentions constitutes keeping the artile. In the end the article remains... Blondi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blondi AbbyWaters (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as shown by at least one good reference. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The coverage in the reference to which DGG refers is a directory. I have searched Google Books and have only able to find directory listings or passing mentions. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Cunard (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Rosier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not referenced, and questionable nobility TalkToMe_c^intelati 20:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the main source. As to notability, his was one of the first accounts of English exploration of America, and his book is a primary source used by historians of the colonial period, as can be readily seen by clicking on the "book" link above. Two other articles link to it. I created the article to get rid of the redlinks, and I'm sure it could be expanded using more modern sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, GBooks shows many sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Craig Sinclair

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nobility issues. the only claim to fame is that she is the wife of a famous author. TalkToMe_c^intelati 20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. She had notable connections to several notables. Now, I'm not saying she's Alma Mahler, but she's sort of the chaste version. KEEP. Just, you know, let's make it better.Thmazing (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an author with her autobiography being reviewed in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times (see the Google News archive results linked above) and an entry in Lives of Mississippi Authors, 1817-1967. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I first questioned her notability and then found material to add. Let's get the autobio and its reviews added. I remember that she played an independent and key role in financing Eisenstein's Mexican film. We need to disentangle her from her husband, I'd say. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sefer Sheva Mitzvot HaShem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, and no importance of importance TalkToMe_c^intelati 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect this nice tidbit to the main Seven Laws of Noah article. The title of this article, Sefer Sheva Mitzvot HaShem is a Hebrew transliteration, translated into English as the "Book [of the] Seven Commandments [of] God" which is what the Seven Laws of Noah are and also known as. IZAK (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and per IZAK. I'm not sure it needs a redirect. Joe407 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book exists [7] is there any reason to deny an article based on that? --Shuki (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mere existence of a book does not warrant an article about the subject of that book. Does the book meet the criteria for being notable? Wikipedia is not a catalog of fringe religious books. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this passes WP:NBOOK Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources - no article. Do not merge unsourced content. Sandstein 07:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I concur with Sandstein. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolf 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have deja vu. One trivial write-up in PC Welt; no other coverage seems to be available. I don't think this meets WP:N (either). Marasmusine (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to have sufficient reliable coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to America's_Next_Top_Model,_Cycle_15. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Petrack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual whose only claim to notability is participation in a TV show, which is still in progress. role^player 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual who has influenced the Jewish community worldwide and whose actions have sparked conversations among all kinds of people, Jewish and non-Jewish. She is only a TV show contestant, fine, but she has done a lot more than model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.163.1 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15, the series she is participating in. If her notability later becomes clearer, the redirect can be changed back into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15. I agree with Metropolitan90 on this. The subject's name is a plausible search term and the info can be pulled out if notability is later established. Location (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Creator Do whatever you guys would like, but it would probably be a good idea to keep the text of the article for the off chance that her notability becomes important enough for her to have her own page. --Zipadeedooda91 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Metropolitan90. WereWolf (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Gashok's changes do not remedy the main reason for deletion, lack of notability. Sandstein 07:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synovel CollabSuite

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic techno-babble, reads like an advert. No hits in reputable book sources. Web hits mainly mirrors of wikipedia, no coverage in reliable publications.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage, this is basically spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam: It also provides some innovative features that improve productivity of the user. Some of them include a dashboard that pulls information from various applications and presents a summary and the feature of detecting a calendar event (meetings, appointments etc.) from email text.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement like content has been deleted from the article. I suggest that this article be marked for improvement than deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashok (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more encyclopedic links and references. This software is listed in very famous software portals like http://freshmeat.net/ from where the features are verified and summarized. So the claim about 'no coverage in reliable publications' is not true. Can you please elaborate on 'Web hits mainly mirrors of wikipedia' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashok (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Freshmeat is not a reliable source, it's just a venue for distributing software, please see WP:RS for policy as to what kind of sources count. Many web sites mirror wikipedia content, and since wikipedia is not itself considered a reliable source, web sites that mirror wikipedia content are also considered unreliable. The kind of source that is ideal is a in depth review of the software in a magazine or newspaper, or a book with significant coverage. Hope that helps clarify the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added references and removed advertising like content. Gashok (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made some major content changes, added references and removed advertisement like content. Gashok (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakebar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Unable to find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Adambro (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable CTJF83 chat 18:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources to verify any important facts about this company. They make sweets. So what? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have however moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/List of given names prior to deletion, as suggested. Sandstein 07:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of given names

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have Category:Given names for that, which is much better sorted and not full of unreferenced, unverifiable entries. Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY CTJF83 chat 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Open-ended list. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, redundant list (Also a disambiguation page link-fixer's nightmare) The Interior (Talk) 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than anything, this reminds me of one of those racks of little license plates in a gift shop, and the disappointment in finding that there isn't a plate for your name. Basically, this is a long list of Wikipedia articles about given names, and a potentially endless list of names that don't have a Wikipedia article. Although lists and categories can co-exist, I don't see anything that this list provides, other than a caution against naming a little girl "Aadu" or "Aarne" because those are boys' names. There's potentially no end to the red-links-- Abbondanza ♀, Abbondanzio ♂, Abbondio ♂ are a perfect example of how one can vary a particular name -- I suppose one could look on this list to see whether there's an article about the given name "Abbondanza", but more likely they can type it into the search box, A-b-b-o-n-d-... and hey! my name isn't on here. Mandsford 00:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wiktionary looks like it should be a wiktionary appendix. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator is wrong on all accounts. Magioladitis stated the cat is better sorted than this page, but that's not true since the page gives the genders and is alphabetically ordered. Magioladitis stated that this page is "full of unreferenced, unverifiable entries", but the cat is exactly the same. I checked the first 10 "names" in the cat, only 1 has a reference for a name; actually these pages were mostly mini disambig pages that just happen to list a few names and other things. The fact is that this page is no worse than the cat, and it has a slight advantage because it's neat and easy to get what your looking for on one page. I can't argue the WP:NOTDIRECTORY point, or the fact this list has the potential to be "practically endless", or that it is really just a maze of redlinks ATM. I think a copy of this page ought to be retained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, because it could be helpful to editors since the redlinks easily show which names have no presence at all on Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least the category contains only names whch are reasonably guaranteed to exist. This list omits hundreds of names which do exist, and contains hundreds of redlinks to "names" which one has no reason to believe in. If there was proper sourcing one might begin to take it seriously. In its present form it's a complete waste of space. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have it a Wiktionary? Wiktionary has tonnes of redlinks, and has appendices that are just lists. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move this to an appropriate project space. It just isn't article material. Please note that Wiktionary already has extensive listings and appendices of given names. bd2412 T 16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE (For a while ^^)

Hello,

I'm the author of this superfluous article ...

This unreasonable monsterlist is meant to be a provocation for editors to improve this subject area ... (worklist) ....

It's always much more easy to call out "kick'em", than to contribute constructive thoughts ...

Five times "Delete" - My argumentations will be going to be in vain, - fruitless discussions I evade ...

H. Klaus M. Hoffmann (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move — This is an important page for quality assurance (completeness) in the context of the WikiProject Anthroponymy. I agree that it does not fit with the article inclusion or list inclusion criteria for Wikipedia for the main space. I would, therefore, advocate its being moved out of the main space. On the matter of Wiktionary, an appendix already exists for this at wikt:Appendix:Names; therefore, I am removing the migrate to Wiktionary template on the page. We do need a good synchronization method between the two, which currently doesn't exist. Why would the Wiktionary page not be sufficient? Because a listing in the Wikitionary list does not provide any completeness information for Wikipedia, which is (in my opinion) the primary reason for retaining the list in a non-main namespace. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sounds like it should projectify to WPAnthroponymy... like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/List of given names ? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. If there is a category, there should be a list. I don;t know what counts as superfluous, but a list duplicating a category is just an alternate way of presenting things, and every bit as useful--and useful is a valid criterion for navigational devices. . DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Commentator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB. There seems to be very little coverage of the web site itself out there. From WP:NOT#INTERNET, this article merely describes the site's offering, without encyclopedic perspective. This is a symptom of the lack of third party coverage. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not even claimed, much less demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MelanieN. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venn-networks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fixing nomination for IP. Deletion rationale was "Non notable, self-promotion, no sources except author's phd." No opinion from me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with the IP. Under history: "Venn-networks were proposed by Fernando Buarque during his PhD under supervision of Philippe De Wilde at Imperial College London – University of London – England, in 2002." Under references: "^ Buarque de Lima Neto, F. (2002) (HTM). Modeling Neural Processing Using Venn-networks in Phisiological and Phatological Scenarios (PhD Thesis - Imperial College, London, England). http://dsc.upe.br/~fbln/thesis/index.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-18." In the external links: "Fernando Buarque Research page " And created by? User:Fbln. Fernando Buarque de Lima Neto.--Friendly IP (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems interesting, but completely lacks notability. Looks like someone tried to turn their thesis into a Wikipedia article. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. remove also Venn network and Venn-network, which redirects to Venn-networks.93.172.17.214 (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You know, if someone's thesis gets covered in reliable sources, and ends up with some notability - fantastic. But that does not appear to be the case here. As for the redirects - as soon as a redirect has its target deleted, a bot will tag it for G8 speedy deletion, and some bored admin will mop it up. No problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy regarding Wikipedia articles in other languages? The same article appears also in Portuguese as: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redes_de_Venn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.44.6 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't directly control other projects, and it's possible that their criteria are different. Sometimes, sources from one project can be used to kick off an article on another project, though. Not being up on my Portuguese, though, I couldn't tell you what the other article means to this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I am going to rename it to Walter Cooper (doctor) with a space (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cooper(doctor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable. having a PhD and being active in the local community isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. ccwaters (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sufficient sources given in current article to meet WP:BIO. This is in no small part because, I feel, nominator has missed the importance of the subject. The subject was, in addition to being a corporate scientist, a pioneering civil rights activist and educator. [8] has a good strong biographic blurb, which clearly meets the definition of significant coverage by an independent source (in this case, the library of the University of Rochester). Ray^Talk 13:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would discount UofR as an independent source in this case: he's their alumnus and the subject of their press releases. ccwaters (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would respectfully disagree. University libraries are research institutions, and not particularly beholden to their alumni in any significant way. Their intellectual independence is pretty well understood. Your statement is akin to saying that what Harvard produces about John F. Kennedy is suspect because he's an alum, or Princeton about John Foster Dulles. Ray^Talk 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - having served on the New York Board of Regents doesn't make someone notable? —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - possibly to Walter Cooper (scientist). He is clearly notable, not only for being on the Board of Regents, but also for having a public school named in his honor. I did a partial rewrite and re-organization of the article to make it flow better and make his notability more apparent. --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep the article. (non-admin closure). Withdraw my nomination to delete. No consensus reached. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of C.I.D. Special Bureau episodes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is literally just a list of episodes. Far too many details and statistics with no explanation. As WP:EPISODE says: "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." I would suggest a merge, but the main article itself already contains extensive commentary on the "major episodes". — Fly by Night (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn it into a redirect until such time (if ever) there is sufficient content. Right now it's a list with no content justifying a separate article. QU ^TalkQu 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:EPISODE part cited above refers to episode and season (British series) articles, not episode lists. The C.I.D. LoE contains exactly what an LoE is expected to contain, a plot summary is not needed. I really do not see a difference with this list to any other LoEs (for mostly American shows). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:EPISODE says that these pages should "not merely be a list of episode titles", i.e. LoE pages should all go unless they contain "out-of-universe context"; which this article does not. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the section you cite refers to episode articles and season articles (British: series articles). This is a list, not an article. And I've never seen an LoE getting deleted for fulfilling its purpose (i.e. listing episode titles). Also, episode titles, episode numbering and air dates already present "out-of-universe context". – sgeureka ^t•c 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sgeureka. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Ching

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has already been deleted twice, A7, BLPPROD and the BLPPROD template was removed this time round without any refs being added, so lets do this the full way. Prove that she is notable by supplying reliable sources, or delete it. The-Pope (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough of a career yet to meet WP:NACTOR. -- BenTels (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Needs sources, yes... but it appears do-able. It would seem that this actress meets WP:ENT by getting significant roles in notable (Phillipine) productions. GMA News writes about her, but they are not exactly independent. The PEP has an article that covers her directly and in depth. Manila Sun Star writes of her at depth. Surely there is more. What we need is some input from Filipino Wikipedians with access to sources not available in the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that being a BLP of a minor should be grounds for delete and salt unless a fully sourced & BLP policy compliant draft was checked by an admin. How long does this charade have to go on for. As the deletion templates were constantly being ignored, removed etc, and technically the BLPPROD could have still been applied, I instead chose this route to get more "certainty" in the outcome, but instead of ten days, it's now lasted 14, with the chance of 21.The-Pope (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Not sure why my edit cut out half way through... but as the bare minimum referencing has been added, I guess it's all moot now)[reply]

Keep as I have added two sources, one of which was suggested by User:MichaelQSchmidt above. I'd like to point out that BLP PROD templates "may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" (WP:BLPPROD). Normal PROD templates can be removed by anyone at any time. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate evidence for meeting ENT. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty good sourcing now. She's in as large a TV market as UK, France, or Germany, and has had leading roles. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of C.I.D. episodes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is literally just a list of episodes. Far too many details and statistics with no explanation. As WP:EPISODE says: "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." I would suggest a merge, but the main article itself already contains extensive commentary on the "main episodes". — Fly by Night (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm perfectly okay with an episode list for even modestly notable TV shows, and "the longest running show in the history of Indian Television" is more than notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "the longest running show in the history of Indian Television." That's a case of false referencing. If you follow the reference given then you will see that it's the "...the longest running thriller series..."; which could mean anything. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no problems articulated by nom which can't be solved by editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Issues can be taken care of by editing. no need for deletion. BTW, CID is the longest running Indian tv series of all types [9], not just thrillers.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:EPISODE part cited above refers to episode and season (British series) articles, not episode lists. The C.I.D. LoE contains exactly what an LoE is expected to contain, a plot summary is not needed. I really do not see a difference with this list to any other LoEs (for mostly American shows), except that it's partly badly formatted (a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on behalf of Shorecrane1 (see edit history). — Fly by Night (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical Incisions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator admits on talkpage that this mostly empty list could only be filled via WP:OR. The intro reads like an essay. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and the creator were wrong, then. You really should have checked the statement for yourself. I found Agnew's, Bergmann's, Fergusson's, Mackenrodt's, and Warren's incisions in ISBN 9782294701672. I stopped after those. A good overall introduction to the topic of surgical incisions was relatively easy to find by just looking in the introductory chapters of a textbook of surgery, and finding ISBN 9781405126274 pp. 31. A textbook on general surgical principles yielded a typology of abdominal incisions, complete with diagram, at ISBN 9780781750035 pp. 229.
Turning from the textbooks to the encyclopaedias, I find that ISBN 9780813826028 has articles on the internal Bevel incision, the extrasulcular incision, and the Crestal incision; ISBN 9780787677237 has an article on the subject of incision care (pp. 743 et seq.); and ISBN 9780816062850 has articles on the anchor incision, the various incision placement guidelines that there are, W-plasty, Y-plasty, and Z-plasty, a redirect for the h-flap incision, and the doughnut incision and short scar incision (a.k.a. lollipop incision) as sections under breast reduction.
Have you considered the possibility that writing about this sort of stuff is what Wikipedia is in some need of? Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have; but not in this form. I still believe this cannot be fixed, but if others want to try, of course, go ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I agree with Uncle G (talk) Wikipedia is indeed in need of such articles but its just need some expansion and betterment. I guess Wikipedia is made for use of all people equally well. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per G but move to Surgical incision per WP:SINGULAR and lowercasing. Good stub/start. JJB 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciation BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hippocrates: "First, do no harm". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was broken, malformed, mis-placed, and rationale-less nomination. Categories are discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I've fixed all of the categorization mess that this nomination page was causing. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish regiments of the British Army

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWOT (manga)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to fail the WP:BK guidelines as per MOS:AM. Searching on Google Books finds little to support a claim of notability and the article seems based on promotional material rather than anything than would demonstrate significant impact. PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Note, you may wish to compare with Ōmagadoki Zoo created based on the same magazine. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has not received any significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. I'll also note that the original author has once again added a plot summary that was copied from another website. Previously, it was an illegal scanlation website, this time from the publisher's website. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. It's a verified part of Weekly Shōnen Jump, the largest comic book anthology distributed in Japan and origin of such notables as the Dragon Ball franchise, the One Piece franchise, and the Death Note franchise. On second thought, a redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump may be more fitting. It's way too new to be considered notable. I'm sure that, given time, the subject may merit a separate article, but not now.--hkr Laozi speak 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And do comic books fall under the WP:BK guideline? They're published very differently from the method normal books are published. The general notability guideline applies better, I think.--hkr Laozi speak 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might think so, but I was going by the specific guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) as mentioned in the nomination and developed by prior consensus. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I see, just realised there's a Notability section under the MoS. Thanks, that clears things up.--hkr Laozi speak 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely oppose redirecting to the manga magazine. Weekly Shōnen Jump serializes hundreds of manga each year, most of which are never successful and generally forgotten. Shueisha, the magazine's publisher, literally takes a "throw on the wall and see what sticks" approach. —Farix (t | c) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those mainly one-shots though? They usually only release 8-10 actual series per year. Redirects are very useful to the user, especially if it's relevent like the nominated entry, and it's better than having a user see a redlink, recreate a page, and having that page go through the entire deletion process all over again. I guess that makes me a redirectionist, eh?--hkr Laozi speak 16:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any indications of notability here. --DAJF (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump per WP:BEFORE. Very new series, not yet notable. Just as a tip, when nominating articles for deletion, manuals of style have no sway and mentioning them may be confusing. Using just the notability guidelines, when that is your concern, is better. If this met either the WP:GNG or WP:BK, it could be kept, but it does not seem to, yet. --Malkinann (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be missing the point of the above comments, MOS:AM#Notability explains how WP:BK should apply here. Consequently as the nomination states WP:BK is the notability guideline being applied, there is no confusion as one guideline directly refers to the other. Fæ (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I became confused in your nomination - your mention of MOS-AM, a style guideline, lead me to wonder if you thought that AFD is cleanup. WP:BK and WP:GNG apply to showing notability, MOS-AM doesn't. --Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. That's a big enough magazine that this manga may become notable in the future and thus worth keeping as a Redirect. Edward321 (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. CSE results are junk (even after filtering a score of domains), and no one has presented any interesting RSs. --Gwern (contribs) 19:47 30 October 2010 (GMT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two shadows the chosen one

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self-published book lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a self-published book can be notable, they are the exception rather than the rule. The complete lack of independent sourcing shows this is not one of those exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable book without any third-party reliable source. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Hekerui (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant content. fails WP:NOTSTATS Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created by a method wich is used for almost every tennis articles about tournaments. Every tournament has a main page (in this case 2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy) and separate pages for draws. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very tedious. Erm doesn't fail anything it is not an excessive list and can't see how it fails anything else on that list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.200.30 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with it. Xraig (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't excessive statistics which "may be confusing to readers". It's well-formatted easily readable tables with match results from a professional tournament on the ATP World Tour, one of the most notable international tournament series of any sport. If it isn't kept as a separate article then it should at least be merged into 2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy. But keeping such articles separate is better considering there is also a doubles event, and many tennis tournaments both have events for men and women. The ATP site has detailed match statistics (aces, double faults, break points, ...) for each match. That would have been excessive for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every tennis tournament has these articles (one for singles and one for doubles). Very easy to read. Itxia (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the hell should this be deleted? Every WTA and ATP tournaments have their own articles. Stupid nominator.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is it a joke? This site must stay. If not, we should remove all articles with sport results... PL Alvarez (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Olympic Games

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too early (there are a few others like this created lately) Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add to this AfD: 2036 olympic games, Cross reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 olympic games, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination). Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also add: 2026 Winter Olympics Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research."--hkr Laozi speak 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as crystal ball. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation subject to WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from which, the world ends in 2012. It does, doesn't it? Peridon (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete crystal CTJF83 chat 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm adding 2026 Winter Olympics to this list too (was originally at RfD, but after a questionable non admin closure, it's much simpler to bring it here) (please object if you find one different from the others). Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I carried out the "questionable non admin closure". Redirecting a page then immediately asking for the redirect to be deleted via RFD is bad procedure since it doesn't allow the underlying page to be considered and, equally importantly, there is no bar to recreation. Oh, and Delete all. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBD 2032 is this same article before it was moved to the current name. Nine deletes and no other opinions. (AFD on "2032 olympic games" above is a different article on this same topic.) I'm neutral myself to avoid offending the Ghanaians. :D JJB 21:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete, but let's hope we're all alive to watch them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap like this should be speedied, despite what WP:HOAX says. "British Arctic Territorial Olympic Committee"?? All the recent articles of Special:Contributions/Ekil are speculative nonsense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florencia Daud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no sources available to support any claim for notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an employment history, and a nefarious claim to be an expert. Unless something is found then delete, actually, this would qualify for speedy deletion as not asserting notability.--Scott Mac 11:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this deletion! --User talk:Erocifellerskank —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I support deletion of this page. Florencia runs several businesses that prey on English speaking visitors to Argentina. The Trip Advisor Travel Forum for Buenos Aires and BA EXpat forum have current threads detailing alleged attempts to bilk foreigners out of rental deposits. Without evidence that she actually has the degrees or experience she claims, Wiki is unwittingly contributing to the credibility of a very shady character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr dawggy (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idelete - after looking on google (nothing much for notability) I think it is a candidate for speedying, but we can let it run tis course. Could be miselading if what I read elsewhere is true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V to say nothing of WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - support speedy also, results from my search left me wondering if it was a fictitious person. Anyways, there is from my search or in the article now, no WP:RS supported assertion of WP:NOTABILITY - 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
- As nom, I won't object to speedy deletion - at some point it will likely turn into WP:SNOW. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted. The claims are unfounded and unproven, and therefore it should be deleted. That's not to mention the fact that there are good, upstanding members of the community who claim this lady is involved in an apartment rental deposit scam, leading credence to the probability that she wrote her own article and made everything up.--Jasonphos (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velle Baria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now... is this some sort of fluffed-up self-promotion, or is there really some minor notable truth in this grand-sounding write-up? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently quite a few previous versions were deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 at Vell Baria until it was eventually protected from creation. This version certainly asserts notability via a huge torrent of hagiographic prose, but it's completely and totally unsupported by any reliable sources. Certainly reads to me like a vanity autobiography. ~ mazca ^talk 11:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt old-style vanity page of the kind we don't see much of anymore. Suggest also protecting the page as it's been re-created under other titles as noted above. A block for the creator may also be in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Person is self promoting themselves, no 3rd party reliable sources to back anything up. Also the creator User:PatakaZikatuna is blocked one month for socking from an IP address User talk:112.202.183.58 which is also blocked. Momo san ^Talk 15:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per the above arguments. No sources except self published ones, no notability, and if this is really the mulktiple creation of this content, a salt would seem to be in order. He iro 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Also Salt based on repeated re-creation. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's creator is currently blocked for a month. The closing admin may want to check the user's talk page to see if it contains any valid, policy-based arguments against deletion. Bovlb (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a non-notable musician without any coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pip: the story of olive

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a book, so no speedy; WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references or sources whatsoever. Nothing to indicate this book even exists. JIP | Talk 08:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be a category for this. Not even a suggestion of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source, not even sure does it exist. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it definitely exists, and the Amazon page excerpts reviews from The Melbourne Age and Adelaide Independent Weekly, among others. But that said I'm not sure it passes WP:BK and the state of the article is poor enough that it may be better to start over regardless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sadads (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Chi Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>Please do not delete this page. Wiki pages are a work in progress, always. Ctk986 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen other pages with less stay up. Ctk986 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no news coverage per [10]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity among the media doesn't make something Notable. Ctk986 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Popularity among the media does make something verifiable, as we need that if we're going to have an article about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew: by those terms, something with thousands of followers and fans (ie myspace, facebook, twitter) make something notable. social networking is a form of media, and the topic is very popular. Ctk986 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage per my original SD tag. CTJF83 chat 16:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: There has been more external links added, in the description of the label, as to how the name was derived.Ctk986 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. No substantial coverage in third party sources, and a roster of non-notable bands. Essentially spam. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ I contest that most recent comment based on biased opinions of metal and notability. The bands that this user created articles on are unknown and a genre thats not compatible with the genre that this label represents. do not delete. Ctk986 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ctk986, your opinion has by now been heard; there's no need to pile on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources about this record label, and thus failing GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resource added Hails and Horns Magazine (sister publication of AMP Mag) interviewed Oh No! The Afterlife and Oh No! The Afterlife mentioned the label which corresponds to something in the wiki. Do not delete 67.163.217.188 (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ again, Blackmetalbaz, you have a biased opinion, please do not comment on this discussion again. H&HMag is a national magazine-- recently interviewing Black Sabbath, Sick of It All, All That Remains and more. It's notable. 67.163.217.188 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have missed the point, I'm afraid. The article added does indeed mention that the band have signed to the label, but nothing more. No-one appears to be claiming that the label doesn't exist, simply that there is no claim for its notability. The mention in the article is trivial mention, and not enough to pass WP:GNG. This is not an issue of bias, simply one of not seeing any reliable sources out there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Head

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the WP:ORG and WP:PRODUCT guidelines. Though the brand may have been around since 1865 and can probably document its history of being bought and sold as a brand, there seems little evidence of significant impact. Searching Google News shows no relevant matches and general searching only shows press-release related material that does not provide adequate evidence of significant impact. The article has been around since 2008 and flagged for improvement for 18 months with no signs of sources being found to address the issue (previously reliant on answers.com as a source). I note that a previous edit comment refers to the brand as "ancient" and there may be an argument that current American brand names of over 140 years old should be considered automatically notable regardless of sources, though I would not consider that the case for brand names of, say, British origin. Raising for wider discussion for these reasons. Fæ (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, taking a look through the Google News search, I'm able to find quite a few references from various stages of the company's development, including its bankruptcy and some lawsuits it was involved in. It looks to me like there are sufficient sources to sustain the article, even if they're not properly used now. (Should note that I disagree with the idea that anything or anyone can be "automatically" notable, something is notable or not solely based upon amount of source coverage, not age. Here, the sources just happen to exist.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a slight clarification to be made here, the company has not been in business for 140+ years, it is only the brand name that can make this claim and the meaning of the brand has also changed over time as it is being used to sell quite different products from those it originally started out with. I think it is safe to assume that even the brand logo has been significantly adapted in that time. Fæ (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not sure that press coverage due to bankruptcies and legal troubles alone, when they're mere mentions, makes a company notable, but given the longevity of this one, I'm willing to lean towards keep. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the nomination the age criteria may be worth pursuing as a notability exception. In comparison the American brand/manufacturer Towle Silversmiths has been in continuous operation for 320 years, over twice as long, see List of oldest companies. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy that this brand is sufficiently widely recognised (albeit only just) and it's certainly old enough.

Fæ's suggestion is interesting, of automatic assumption of notability for really old brands. I'd suggest "150 years and still extant" as a round number. For things post-Great Exhibition, I don't even think there's much difference between UK & US relative ages. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky area I'm afraid and would take more discussion than would be sensible for an AfD. I can easily find London-based brand names of, say, solicitors (e.g. Monro Fisher Wasbrough LLC), market traders and estate agents (e.g. Watts & Morgan) that can lay claim to being a brand/company/trading name of over 150 years. Automatic notability would be hotly disputed for some of these (and especially for those than might have gone out of business but have records spanning such a period). Fæ (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This brand seems to have fallen on hard times during the Web era (meaning fewer sources than might be desirable), but even in the 1980s was ubiquitous in the southern U.S.; it seems the introduction of Dockers by Levi Strauss was the first blow for their stodgy product line, and the purchase by Goody's, which at the time was expanding rapidly but was soon facing financial disaster, did further damage to the brand. However, it's still a very old brand with regional significance. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only do WP:ILIKEIT, but it passes the WP:GNG -- with flying colors. I found (and added to the article references) a long newspaper article (from the business page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch) about the brand, including the large amounts of money that were paid for the brand in some of the transactions that occurred in the last decade. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that source. Initially I was thinking the brand purchase might be a reason to merge under the parent company name, however the statement "merchandise sales exceeded $97 million in 2004" stuck out (other figures related to forecasts and so were rather less significant). I would find it hard to believe that there are no reliable sources from that period that could not support significant impact with these trading levels, had that fact been in the article I would have been inclined to mark for citation improvements rather than going to AFD. Fæ (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well established brand. I'm sure that there's more than enough independent coverage in the pages of Footwear News if one were to search their archive. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Final Destination series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally prodded this,but apparently it had been prodded before, which resulted in an automatic decline. Since I added the prod tag, the article has degraded even further. This is nothing more than an elaborate and extensive plot summary of the films (almost exclusively the first in the series). There is no real world significance indicated and the sources go to IMDB, cast lists, random movie pages, and the film itself (essentially, nothing of substance). 13² 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator - Also, the photos and their captions don't help, as they are essentially promotional in nature, talking about what other roles the actors have played and what the actors starred in. Overall, to me, this really feels more like a glorified fanpage than an encyclopedia article. --13² 05:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and just added what happened to each character but that was it. I never explained the plot etc. People then decided to erase everything I put and start up their own summaries. It was too late for me to change everything back when I returned from vacation, so I just gave up on it. Though, I agree it's nothing more but the plot being summarized. After the page was moved to "List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series", I decided I'd had enough. So I support the deletion of the article. It's just a plain, big-old mess now. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 06:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As the nom has indicated, the article is very crufty and in need of clean up, which I fully agree with. But be that as it may, I think the article can easily be trimmed down up to guideline standards. As per the precedent of having thousands of "list of fictional character" entries, these lists are perfectly fine, especially for large franchises like the Final Destination series.--hkr Laozi speak 06:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List are fine. Extensive and redundant plot summaries are not. Your "List of fictional characters" is a category, not an article. Just because other articles exist, doesn't mean this one should. -13² 06:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that every article on Wikipedia has to pass WP:N, whether or not you like it or whether or not other similar articles exist. As of now, this article does not currently pass WP:N, which is ultimately what decides whether an article stays or goes. ~--13² 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was the point, the other articles establish a precedent. Character lists entries are a perfectly notable subject that does pass notability guidelines under WP:FICT.. Your main point, that the article needs to be cleaned up is a perfectly valid one, just not for deletion. As per WP:DEL, clean up is not considered an important criteria for deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion".--hkr Laozi speak 06:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That other articles exist does establish a precedent: WP:WAX. --13² 06:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To quote WP:LSC: A list is warranted if it is about a notable subject, and "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert. The same rationale that allows the existence of "List of minor characters in Dilbert" should allow the existence of this entry. WP:LSC is an approved part of the Manual of Style and WP:DEL is official policy, while WP:WAX is an essay.--hkr Laozi speak 06:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And WP:WAX includes a caveat that specifically discusses this issue, that invalidates your point. "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using [the] angle provides for consistency."--hkr Laozi speak 06:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, just because other articles exist, doesn't mean this one should. How are the characters (excluding their extensive summaries) notable? As of yet, nothing establishes notability per WP:N. Period. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but until you're offering reliable sources, nothing else really matters. --13² 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Reread the caveat. And I've repeatedly quoted all the relevant policies that establishes the notability of the article, all of which you've yet to address. To quote from the same essay: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Your argument is that it is poorly written, and because so it violates the criteria of WP:N. My response is that it cearly doesn't, and that the appropriate response is clean-up, as per policy and consensus, and not deletion.--hkr Laozi speak 06:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is not, simply, that it is poorly written. To suggest as much means you haven't read a single thing I've said. "...all of which you've yet to address." And yet you have not made one single remark as to why the characters pass WP:N except for caveats, which, in all honesty, really just don't hold up (seriously Luke Skywalker is on a whole other plane than Tod Wagner). Either they do or they do not pass WP:N. Pick one. The fact that you are still clinging to the idea that the article is useful doesn't help, just to let you know. --13² 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As evidence so far, you've yet to quote any criteria in WP:N which this article specifically violates, so I've assumed your argument is your nomination rationale (if it's not, you should clarify): "the article has degraded even further. This is nothing more than an elaborate and extensive plot summary of the films". These are points which can easily be fixed by a very quick cleanup. Again, "the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."--hkr Laozi speak 07:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The caveat does hold up within in context. Obviously, Tod Wagner is not as notable as Luke Skywalker (I've never suggested he was), but Tod Wager is not being nominated for deletion, List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series is. And List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series is as perfectly as notable as any similar article, like List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of minor characters in the Matrix series.--hkr Laozi speak 07:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it does not. I'm nominating all of the characters, not a single, specific one. The article must satisfy WP:N to be included, whether or not you agree with or like the subject matter. Again, whether or not other articles exist has absolutely no bearing on this one so stop trying to pull them in. In regard to notability, how about we start with the very first line of general notability requirements, eh? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In other words, this article doesn't not satisfy it because all sources are either unreliable or the film itself. I have no objection if the article stays if those sources are found, but, right now, they don't exist. The fact that a less than two week old account knows and argues this much about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and little-known pages is unnerving (or not). --13² 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the problem here, you're misreading the guidelines: I'm nominating all of the characters. No, you're not. You're nominating a list of minor characters. The list is under scrutiny, not each individual character. If this was true, any list would fail your interpretation of WP:N. The point of lists, as according to WP:LSC, is to have an entry for characters that wouldn't otherwise have a separate entry according to notability guidelines. The subject must be notable, not each character. To judge each character independently for notability is highly problematic, and goes contrary to established consensus.--hkr Laozi speak 07:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please explain the difference between "list of" and "list of". Either I'm nominating them all or I'm not. Frankly, I'm nominating them all. If some specific character is particularly notable, then that character should have its own article, not be smushed in with the other, non-notable characters. Also, the issue of your extremely new account is still an issue, which you have not addressed. --13² 07:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This AfD is especially relevant, speaking as someone who's recently created a list article and had to read through WP:LSC to get it up to DYK standards (I'm crossing my fingers that it'll pass through). Your argument for deletion is contrary to what I've read. I'm just directly quoting the guideline here: A list is created when Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria.' These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. What needs to be judged is the notability of the subject, and not that of the individual listed items.--hkr Laozi speak 08:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not resort to an irrelevant issue here, I've cited the relevant policies. And to clarify: By "extremely", you're referring to the fact that my account is over a week old. I began with writing/editing articles on Chinese ethnic groups and philosophy earlier this week, which required a great deal of research and looking up/reading all the notability and layout guidelines, especially since the subjects I dealt with are obscure and possibly prone to deletion. I've had some experience editing as an anonymous IP, but I've recently been reading up on a lot of policy and Manual of Style tips to get articles up on the front page. I dabbled with AfD early on after seeing articles I was randomly viewing nominated, but after being acquainted with the Wikipedia community (and some very helpful users giving me some great advice), in the past few days I've moved toward seriously helping the community with deletion discussions. We've all got to start somewhere, right? That doesn't change the fact that my arguments still stand, so please don't bite me. :) --hkr Laozi speak 08:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the series, but I've begun to initiate a major overhaul and cleanup of the article.--hkr Laozi speak 07:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You voted strong keep above and then post this? You still have to pass WP:N. Slapping on a cleanup tag and removing a few sentences doesn't really indicate a major overhaul and cleanup of an otherwise very problematic article. --13² 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just started a few minutes ago. You're welcomed to help, of course. :) --hkr Laozi speak 07:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been working on the Final Destination articles for years... --13² 07:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed most of the cruft that was filling up the article. Now planning on adding more sources. The article has gone from 40k bytes to 20k bytes, nearly halved, with most of the trivial details removed. --hkr Laozi speak 10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added more sources, including the New York Times, New York Post, and Variety reviewing each performance, along with a critical reception section for each relevant performance. As of now, the article is probably better cited than most of the "List of fictional characters" entries. What the nom has been implying is a policy change for the inclusion of "list of fictional character" entries, which is a discussion that belongs on the talk page of WP:LIST and not on AfD. With a clean up, this article definitely meets WP:N and WP:RS. I maintain my strong keep.--hkr Laozi speak 11:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article still needs a lot of work to it, a lot more cleanup. A lot of trivial stuff has been removed, but a lot of it is still left, and I'm not that familiar with the series to distinguish (I'm not especially interested in horror films). But I think it's doable.--hkr Laozi speak 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication the series is distinct enough to warrant a separate articles for the characters. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. I am FDJoshua22, and I am new to discussions about deleting articles or lists such as this one. I am taking responsible for making those edits in the list, and I am terribly sorry for making the list a horrid example of Wikipedia. I am very disappointed of myself right now for doing such, since I have used the list as an advantage for making self-contributions to Wikipedia. I promise that if the list is either kept or deleted, I would accept the consequences. -- -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, as a devoted fan of the series, adding a character list would be relevant to articles related to the franchise. This is because the film's articles (Final Destination, Final Destination 2, Final Destination 3, The Final Destination) had encountered massive editing processes due largely to the characters and their respective deaths being added into these articles; moreover, it usually took a long period of time before these articles have been shortened into a wikified format. Thus, adding a character list is important, but adding a detailed bio in each character should be reconsidered (like what I've done). -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if the respective admins or editors here have something to say to me, please go to my talk page by clicking here. -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article just needs to be trimmed down and cleaned up. You've done nothing wrong, and your efforts to edit and expand the page have been highly appreciated. The deletion process is very simple to learn, and you'll quickly become accustomed to it, just read the guidelines at WP:DEL. From what I've seen so far from your contributions, you're already pretty adept at Wikipedia's Manual of Style (much more than me, as a newer editor!). It's just that the article contains a few trivial details that shouldn't be there. With those removed, and with more independent reliable sources added, the article should be kept. --hkr Laozi speak 11:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I understand. Thanks for clearing the message to me. Either how, if there is anyway I could help in making the list more appropriate, I am always free. -- FDJoshua22 11:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have heard of Final Destination, but never seen it. I read the article - and find myself little the wiser. Sorry, folks. Peridon (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a mess. It may be worth considering whether or not the main characters are notable enough for their own individual articles. If they are, you could split them out from this article and make room for the supporting characters who are not notable enough for their own articles. Just a suggestion. I have no idea how notable these fictional characters are. See WP:FICT for notability guidelines. SnottyWong ^gossip 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reading the overall result of this discussion, I noticed that thirteen squared had made a remarkable point here. The characters of the series is not notable enough for a separate article, that I guarantee. However, one ordinary fan of the series will say that the series more or less revolves about these characters dying one by one in Rube Goldberg-style ways. In fact, the characters' creative deaths have been the main subject of attention of the Final Destination franchise. As a suggestion, I would say that instead of having a list of the characters, how about a list of these character's deaths? After all, death is the main element that describes the series. -- FDJoshua22 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable series gets a character list article, as has always been at Wikipedia, and always will hopefully remain. All notable articles get side articles for list of characters and list of episodes/games/issues. Dream Focus 21:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are perfectly acceptable spinout articles to keep the main articles from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hope you guys don't mind, but I put the major reconstruction template in the list. Since I am free this week, I will work on the list by adding all characters. I am now following the format User:Hongkongresident used, and I will also add critics while at it. -- FDJoshua22 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep character lists are perfectly acceptable and even desirable for notabile fictional properties, which this certainly is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Reachtagáin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Can't find a single mention online of a "Red Reachtagáin" or "The Schweitzer Institute Journal of Philosophy". The sole WP:Verifiable reference cited mentions a Ben Noakes, but no evidence that this is the same person. Article was prodded twice for this. This time a link to an essay on iseps.org.uk (Institute for socio-economic and political studies) was cited, and article was undeleted by an admin, but the domain is registered to a Ben Noakes. A few hours after I mentioned this at the talk page, article creator removed that cite. The real Schweitzer Institute sites online don't link back to that domain, and editor's only contributions so far have been to create these two articles and to bump isep.org.uk link up to top of EL list at Albert Schweitzer Institute. Probable WP:HOAX. Top Jim (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2010 (UTnly C)

I am also nominating the following related page as it also appears to be a hoax by the same editor. Zero mention online, and sole reference is WP:PRIMARY from iseps.org.uk, registered to Ben Noakes. Either invented to support notability of author, or completely non-notable:

I am also nominating the following related page. Unreferenced, zero mention online, edits by its creator have been only to create this article and Michael Noakes. Further edits were done by User:BenjaminJones, whose only other edits were to add info on this group to Albert Schweitzer Institute and to add Ben Noakes' name to List of Old Etonians born in the 20th century. There's a whiff of WP:Sockpuppetry here. If the organization does exist, it's non-notable per WP:ORG:

Note - be sure any sources you find are not from the Independent Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Studies which seems to be something to do with ex-USSR states. Bigger digger (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 06:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For someone who claims to work for the monolithic BBC, having no results anywhere online is a huge red flag. Very likely a hoax. And seeing that the only other article the creator of this entry has contributed to is also a hoax, these articles were probably written as a joke.--hkr Laozi speak 06:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oldest trick in the book - link to references that look relevant (to people who only glance at them) but aren't. Smacks of hoax. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3, because TopJim beat me to it and I want some credit for my detective work too! Bigger digger (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, almost certainly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes (cheese)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article, no internal links. Michał Rosa (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emmental (cheese). --Lambiam 07:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add suitable references. This certainly shouldn't be merged into Emmental because there are plenty of other cheeses with holes. Bazonka (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Errr ... Bazonka, would you care to offer a rationale to keep this article? For my part, this is not only a standard attribute in certain kinds of cheese (and mentioned both in those articles and in the main one), but no different from other descriptors. I don't see a Yellow (cheese) or a Soft (cheese) article. Ravenswing 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing - Yellow and soft are adjectives, whereas eye and hole are nouns. So the article is not about a description of cheese, but about a specific thing. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your point being? Ravenswing 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...valid.

No seriously, this would be like an article on craters. Yes, its a tad of a stretch, but it's the same basic concept. See my !vote below for more. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Holes (bread), Bubbles (soft drink) anyone? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or even Holes (chocolate), Bubbles (meringue), Bubbles (wafer) ? --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those pages do exist. Bubbles (soft drink) is Carbonation, holes (bread) is leavened bread. There is no better name for holes (cheese) but there is a precedent for it. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per bazonka or merge to cheese Aisha9152 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not a dictionary. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This isn't a dictionary, but this is a common scientific phenomenon, like oxidation. It will never be as big as oxidation, but it has sources, is notable, and at least in my opinion, should be kept. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge in to cheese. A well-written article, with sources, about a common phenomenon. I don't see any problems with this article. JIP | Talk 08:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Cheese ripening, as per the precedent established with Carbonation and Leavened bread. This article is more about the process and not the actual results, and the title should reflect as such.--hkr Laozi speak 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eyes are a significant topic in cheesemaking. They're obviously not specific to one type of cheese. Nor are they merely part of cheese ripening - recent concerns have been expressed over a reduction in cheese eyes, seemingly caused by changes in behaviour before this ripening stage. This seems like a perfectly justifiable topic for its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've mostly rewritten the article, adding references to a cheese science textbook. There is some overlap with topics such as Swiss cheese and Propionibacterium freudenreichii, but as holes also appear in other types of cheese and as a result of the activity of other bacteria, the topic doesn't fit only into those articles. A merge with Cheese ripening would be possible if we ever have that article. There is much more to cheese ripening than just holes. Sandstein 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created an article for Cheese ripening, incorporated both Eyes (cheese) and some segments of Cheesemaker, and now am heavily expanding the article. --hkr Laozi speak 12:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus here is that the sources quoted are not sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR as they address his work or his blog, not him directly. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article if someone thinks they can find better sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Erwin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prufrock451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American historian and author. One source goes to his website, one goes to one of his books at Google Books, one is dead, the other goes to the Jeopardy website, where he made an appearance. Couldn't find decent coverage in a search. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - documenting that an independent scholar meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF is extremely difficult. I'll give the editors at least a week to find better sources. He gets so many Ghits, and so few Scholar Ghits, it's hard to sort out spam from citations. Bearian (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of a book which is in over 500 academic libraries in the US+Canada, according to worldcat. That, plus the recommendation for his blog, is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I moved the PC external link to a reference. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per dggg Aisha9152 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently no significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject. The PC magazine article is blurb about the web site, not Erwin. There is no information about him on the Greenwood web site, other "JAMES L. ERWIN is an independent scholar." The subject meet none of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. The number of copies of his books in circulation does not, I believe, count towards the author's notability, but if I am wrong please point me to the relevant policy. I don't think one could make a strong case for his book being notable, and I see no evidence that he himself meets our criteria for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are clearly not enough sources for this page, per WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines. The blog recommendation on which DGG, Bearian and Aisha rely is all of three sentences and says nothing of Erwin. If all that can be said is that his book is in wide circulation (500 libraries isn't that wide) then lets have an article on the book if need be. But there is nowhere near enough here for a biography. Because there is absolutely nothing about Erwin. The keep !votes haven't come anywhere near demonstrating notability with reference to relevant inclusion standards, and ought to be given less weight accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few citations by other scholars, if someone could verify that he has been published in McSweeney's, then he might be notable, but I couldn't find anything with a search.--hkr Laozi speak 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the McSweeney's pieces I've written are included below, but I'll keep quiet from here on out. -James Erwin. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/10/2erwin.html http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/10JamesErwin.html http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2004/10/13erwin.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.132.195 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping this page would be against the consensus developed at WP:AUTHOR. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long way from notable. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.S.S.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the references in this article are to a fansite. No evidence that this is notable. Divebomb (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't make sense. The 'fansite' isn't just someone saying 'G.I.Joe is cool'. Much evidence exists. Lots42 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fansite is a fansite is a fansite. --Divebomb (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites don't establish notability. Tfu.info and Seibertron.com don't establish notability for Transformers characters, I think the same would apply to G.I. Joe fansites. Since the site mainly covers G.I. Joe stuff, it's not very third-party, even if Hasbro isn't directly involved with it. (Coincidentally, I'm also someone who goes by a username that's some word with four letters directly followed by the number 42 with no space in between", but not on this site.)NotARealWord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Lots42 has done lots of work with this one in the past, and this one has potential. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Somebody worked hard on the article" may not be a very good "keep" argument. But "the article has potential" might work. NotARealWord (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For background, community consensus according to this and this is to keep articles on G.I. Joe characters. Vehicles have not been discussed, but this particle one at least is notable per G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide pg. 119-120. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to create that page, and merge the content after the AfD has been resolved. Even if the article does get deleted, they can get it's page history back via WP:REFUND and make the article redirect to said list. NotARealWord (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources prove it exists, but fail to indicate notability. No notability, no page. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no such sources in evidence. Sandstein 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources are added. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Sgeureka's idea sounds good. Yes, someone has to do it... the closing admin perhaps? ;) --hkr Laozi speak 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to merge into a vehicle list, no cultural notability and no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show notability with sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Bias

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There is plenty of evidence of "notability" available to satisfy the WP criteria.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None in the article, and the only ghits are non-notable sources. There are a few sparse Google News mentions. That's it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only located two hits (one of which was to a college newspaper) and they only announced he would be speaking. Eudemis (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Out of the 60 books linked by the search in the nomination these, at least, seem to be reliable,[11][12][13] but I'm not sure how significant the coverage is. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a lack of depth to that coverage. I think it's significant that Google News Archives, which has recently been expanded and is astonishingly comprehensive, has virtually nothing on this person. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Google News archive is far from astonishingly comprehensive for anything more than 10 to 20 years old. It relies on the sources already existing in digital form. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has the whole NY Times archive and many regional newspapers, thereby covering the wire services reasonably well. Not perfect, surely. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is at this point no newspaper there I know to be complete all the way back but the NYTimes. It is extremely unfortunate that they have always refused to make clear the sources they use. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I understand the difficulty in uncovering reliable sources for obscure early 20th-century figures, but WP:V is quite clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. Ravenswing 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But I have already identified three reliable third-party sources on this topic above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And which was promptly dismissed as not discussing the subject in significant detail - something, as to that, you questioned yourself - which is a fundamental element to any source satisfying the GNG. Ravenswing 13:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply pointing out that your previous argument is not as conclusive as you implied by the word "period". WP:V says nothing about significant coverage being required. I agree that notability, which does require significant coverage, may still be questionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guidelines require significant coverage, not WP:V. See WP:GNG. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, sorry. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject, whose fame appears to predate the internet, has been mentioned in at least two or three other encyclopedias: J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and James R. Lewis's The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions and Encyclopedia of Afterlife Beliefs and Phenomena. Also found mentions in Amber K's True Magick: A Beginner's Guide, Kerr Cuhulain's Full Contact Magick: A Book of Shadows for the Wiccan Warrior, M. Lamar Keene's The psychic Mafia New York (magazine)[14], as well as various other books by lesser known "spiritualists", etc. There is enough that I'm convinced that he is notable within his "field". Location (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All these citations lack the requisite depth of coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, folks, this isn't tough. It does not satisfy the GNG for the guy's name to be mentioned in a book. There must be significant coverage. These arguments are the 19th century version of "But there are lots of Google hits!" Ravenswing 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I were referring to just Google hits there would be plenty more. The fact that there are so many references in pre-Internet publications lends credence to his notability. It's all quackery to me, but he was obviously very influential among psychics and spiritualists. Robert Chaney devoted 12 pages (i.e. significant coverage) to Bias in a book about mediums: Mediums and the Development of Mediumship. His life was also the basis for two works of fiction: [15] [16]. Another reference refers to his "international fame" drawing packed houses: [17]. WP:BIO/WP:BASIC states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." We've got substantial coverage in the Chaney book and tons of other references that are sufficient to establish notability. Location (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bias (and many others) get plenty of passing mentions in 'occult encyclopedia' type books, but it appears he isn't prominent enough to have been the subject of a biography or other work singularly dedicated to him. Also, Bias's life was not "used as a basis" in the two fictional novels (one published by Lul.com) cited, he merely appears as a character peripheral to the main protagonists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is only necessary that there be substantial coverage. it is not correct that there needs to be a work "singularly" or specifically devoted to him--such proposals have been made from time to time, and always rejected--there are even a few Wikipedians who would like to restrict the encyclopedia to those subjects about which a full book has been written. That would of course give a very much abridged encyclopedia, and we could all have gone on to other things many years ago ` DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but I'm not seeing enough out there in reliable sources to build a biography beyond a stub. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep article needs improvement but that doesnt mean it should be deleted subject is notable Aisha9152 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After all of the trying above, doesn't seem to be a source beyond the singular one, and the above "difficulties" in finding sources is exactly why sparsely sourced individuals aren't notable. We give a lot of leeway to non-current figures, but if there's nothing better being found here (aside from idle speculation and generalities), then it's a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. If there's any verifiable truth to the claim that he counseled FDR and was friendly with Eleanor, I would keep. The little hints I can find in a 2 minute search [18] suggest to me there must be more out there but I won't !vote yet until I look further.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ok, there are enough claims to notability backed up by book sources that merit keeping it, but we can stub out anything we can't source.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse into Now

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about this other than it should exist sometime pretty soon. The press I've seen really just says that they've recorded it and it has a name now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within weeks, perhaps days, more information will become available. It will exist, hence the article will exist, so there's no point deleting it now that it's been created. CityFeedback ^talk 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band practically confirmed the official title in the official website, check http://remhq.com/news_story.php?id=1225 as well as giving an approximate release date of Spring 2011. --186.87.18.30 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It will exist" is not a valid rationale, as there's always a chance the album could not exist (band shelves material, album morphs into new project, album tapes are destroyed--things that have happened to bands before). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into the band's page. I came here, after learning the title from elsewhere, and if I came here (and I'm not even a big fan of the band), then other people are going to be coming here to learn more about the album as well. Quite frankly we don't need to greet them with an AFD notice. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This title has been confirmed. [19] [20] 69.12.166.40 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information of the album title does not confer notability upon the subject as of yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We can recreate the page once notability is established down the line. We're not a news site, and we don't need to have a page for the album yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.M. as there is not enough information for a decent (non-stub) article, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It does fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, and there isn't enough information right now for the album to have its own article. WereWolf (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.M. (most specifically, to the Accelerate section) per Armbrust's comment. It is true that stuff such as "band shelves material, album morphs into new project, album tapes are destroyed" has happened to people before, and details are still not enough for an article (specially if it has such an uncertain given date like "Spring, 2011", pretty remniscient of what's happening with The Strokes' fourth studio album). However, I think that this info (title and slated release date) can be included in the band's page, documenting the current state of the band (which, according to the page, is going through the mixing process of the album, and this seems as useful complementary information for it), and considering the relative notability of the band and the coverage that the announcement of the new album's had may be enough reasons to leave this as a redirect. --186.87.18.30 (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present There's not much to merge, a redirect to the relevent section should suffice, as suggest above.--hkr Laozi speak 13:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge or redirect Don't care which. I always suspect promotion with these not-yet-issued things. This is an encyclopaedia, not NME or Rolling Stone. Peridon (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.E.M.#Accelerate: 2006–present; I have included the album's title in this section on the R.E.M. page, sourcing their official website. CityFeedback ^talk 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect, per WesleyDodds Hekerui (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that it is not notable in its own right, and so should be deleted. The arguments for merging with Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia were not agreed with by the consensus - but if anyone wants a copy of the text userfied to be merged with that article, if they contact me then I will do so -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UBC Debating Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks coverage independent of the society, the university and university debating blogs. Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established society with a century of history. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it may be, but fails WP:ORG without independent significant coverage.Codf1977 (talk)

Delete In common with almost all university debating clubs lacks any form of significant coverage outside the very specialist debating clique.Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is standard practice that university clubs of whatever sort are not notable unless there are ironclad reliable, independent sources which discuss the clubs in significant detail. Not only does "well established society with a century of history" fail to be included under any known criteria for article retention, that phrase describes hundreds of thousands of small, local groups from Granges to garden clubs to veterans posts to Scout troops, in like fashion none of which qualify through WP:ORG or WP:V. Ravenswing 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As it's a sub-part of the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia, why don't we just merge the most important information into that article? Wikipedia will still have the information, and we'll have one fewer non-notable org article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks good here. No independent coverage means it isn't notable by itself, but the info is verifiable so it's worth a mention in the bigger article suggested above. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia. It's true, the subject of this entry is not notable, but there's no harm in merging it with a related and much more notable organisation.--hkr Laozi speak 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per Ravenswing or WhatamIdoing. Peridon (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. Student clubs at a single school are never notable except in truly extraordinary circumstances, which isn't the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a non notable organization. I proposed deletion, based on the article's only two sources coming from the organization itself, but the proposal was rejected by an editor who added another source- which is a non-RS political advocacy organization, too HupHollandHup (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The organization is mentioned in numerous articles for example: Electronicintifada: [21]. Article at Norman Finkelsteins website: [22], The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre: [23] Globalresearch: [24]. OPGAI has many notable mambers and OPGAI has participated at several international conferences such as the World Social Forum [25] and the European Social Forum [26]. OPGAI also started the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign endorsed by 171 organizations, unions, networks and political parties [27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just being "mentioned" in an article is not enough to establish notability. We need significant, in-depth coverage in 3rd party sources to establish notability. On top of that, most of the "mentions" you list above are in non-mainstream, non-RS sources. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sources above are 3rd party. Norman Finkelsteins website is pretty big, he received his doctorate from the Department of Politics at Princeton University. Finkelstein is the author of five books which have been translated into more than 40 foreign editions,[28], there are many interviews with him on the web and many major news agency's have articles about him including the BBC [29]. Globalresearch is a mainstream website. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre was established in 1998 by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), is the leading international body monitoring conflict-induced internal displacement worldwide [30] Electronicintifada is a major media website about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless anyone can show how this organization meets the WP:ORG notability criteria, that is that the organization has received significant coverage in sources considered both independent and reliable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems just as notable as Front for the Liberation of the Golan. Chesdovi (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is relevant to this article's notability, but Front for the Liberation of the Golan is also at Afd right now. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have nothing in common. Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative is a real organization while Front for the Liberation of the Golan is most likely not a real organization. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brewcrewer. NN. --Shuki (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the article does not a cite a single independent, reliable source, it obviously annd utterly fails WP:ORG. Anyone who says otherwise must be unaware of the guideline or willfully ignoring it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reliable, independent sources that mentions the organization, look at my first post above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that directly discuss it AFAICT. 1 is clearly partisan, 2 + 4 are self published and the others are mere mentions. Smartse (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with JDE that WP:ORG is not met and a search for sources has failed to uncover anything else we can use. Smartse (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received coverage in several newspapers over a significant period of time, and meets the general notability guideline, and is not routine news coverage either. Linda Olive (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~SCould you perhaps point us to this "coverage in several newspapers over a significant period of time"? It's certainly not in the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep article needs improvement does not mean it should be deleted Aisha9152 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources simply do not exist. POVpush aside, there simply isn't reliable third party coverage at all. There are plenty of other groups that share this group's agenda, that actually have coverage. This one doesn't, so it has to go. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient information for keeping. "plenty of other groups" that are notable does not mean that this one isn;t DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: It turns out that the HupHollandHup account who started this AfD is a reincarnation of blocked NoCal100. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many hits have the name without the word "Syrian". I added that above. Zero^talk 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinotrax

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN fails WP:BAND only trivial coverage [31] CTJF83 chat 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is a review of the bands entire discography trivial? (PS I am also still googling the other reviews the band has recieved) ----ctk986

Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ctk986 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Borderline speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Reviews on sites that fail WP:RS are worthless to Wikipedia, and I'm struggling to find any substantial coverage in commercial sources. No charting singles, no releases on otherwise notable labels, borderline speedy for lack of assertion of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Spatulli (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Flip's Twisted World. The consensus is that the company is not notable at this time in its own right, whereas the game meets the criteria (following the recent AfD for that article). If the company meets the criteria for inclusion at a future time, then it can always have an article re-created -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen North Productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable developer who have only one title, which is not yet released. Sources in the article (LinkedIn and an IGN Dev Page) do not constitute significant coverage, nor reliable sources. If in a few months the game becomes a huge success, then they'll probably be able to get an article here - until then, one upcoming game and no press coverage doesn't seem enough. Addionne (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strongly agreed with Addionne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.35 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Developer without even one game released and has a lack of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge to the game, as the company isn't notable (yet) but as the game does seem to have enough sources, might as well merge until notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flip's Twisted World. The company doesn't seem to be notable, but as they're partnering with Majesco Entertainment, one of the bigger game publishers, the game they're releasing certainly meets notability guidelines. If the company does turn out to be a huge success one day in the future, then it'll deserve a seperate article, but that's a big if.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article was originally created by the company itself as a promotional vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.18 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as per Hongkongresident. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The game is not notable, as Hongkongresident says it is. Asserting that it is notable because it is being released with Majesco is an argument to avoid: WP:INHERITED. His/her second point is valid though. If the company becomes notable, then an article can be considered. For now, delete, don't merge. It's looking like the game article may go, as well. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it becomes notable some time in the future we can always create a new one or even restore this one. Right now its not notable and may never will beThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flip's Twisted World. If that is found to be non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flip's Twisted World then keep. I have done a big search, finding [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37], none of them hugely in-depth, one or two borderline independent from the subject but all offering a degree of coverage beyond a passing mention and enough to create an interesting article. Bigger digger (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with GorillaWarfare and Addionne Distant highway (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now; if the game is success and company gets coverage, then split back. Let's not crystal about whether it will become notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hongkongresident; this is a valid redirect but a long way from notable enough for a stand alone article. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but with no objection to merging it back out when and if they have more games under their belt sometime in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a game developer with only one released game is not in itself notable. Greentrees1 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)— Greentrees1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep or Merge How unusual is this M.C. Escher-like ability to use all available surfaces? My computer gaming extends as far as FreeCell, but I don't recall hearing about (or seeing on the machines of young friends and relations) this facility. Even in a Harry Potter game I was introduced to by a young lady (whose virus-laden computer I'd just fixed) seemed to be governed by vertical gravitic orientation. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It goes back to the NES days of the mid-80s at least. Batman and Ninja Gaiden both had main characters with wall-crawling abilities. Castlevania III had a playable character who could crawl both walls and ceilings. When the Super Nintendo came out circa 1991, scaling and rotating graphics were one of the main selling points, and were used (some might say overused) extensively, leading to games like Super Castlevania IV and Super Ghouls & Ghosts, both of which had sections where the environment rotated and the floor became the ceiling and so on. So the basic concept goes back at least a couple of decades, but that doesn't necessarily mean this game is any more or less notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Did some research and found some reliable sources that seem to imply some notability (and added them to the page). However since the company has only released one game, it might be better suited for a merge instead and possibly split if/when a second project is announced. Deepsix66 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66 — Deepsix66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Most of those sources refer to the game, with only a passing mention to the company. That said, there was some good info there - I did move some to the Flip's article where it seemed more relevant. -Addionne (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several of the new sources do not meet WP:N and do not add credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.158 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 69.165.129.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge until such time as publisher becomes independently notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the game article. The Eskimo (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:ORG. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Osteopaths Registration Board

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [38]. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; worthy but obscure medical licencing agency. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#Australia_.26_New_Zealand - neither obscure or low on notability - there is b... all else on wikipedia about osteopathy in australia - deleting is ignoring the lack of info about the practice/profession/subject in Australia - as for g anything as a referent point huh? - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=New_South_Wales_Osteopaths_Registration_Board Satu Suro 03:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that reference just shows 3 annual reports published by that organisation. not third party. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - still needs a merge rather than a delete - specially when there is buckleys about the profession on wikipedia for australia Satu Suro 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this organisation is so obscure that hardly anyone will know about it outside the occupation. any useful info about it is probably on its own publications. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the notability guidelines, absurd as they are. Plus, the article will just get created again next season anyways. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no clear-cut consensus between deletion and merging. I am closing this as a non-consensus, but without prejudice against a renomination at AfD - however, I would suggest that it might be useful to have a week or so discussion on this matter at WikiProject Baseball to see what the project thinks before any such re-nomination occurs -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Uviedo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is not notable yet. Though he spent time on the Toronto Blue Jays 40-man roster (I think...), he has not reached the major leagues, nor has he pitched above the AA level. Alex (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Note to Closing Admin AFD nom has suggested below that the article be merged to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players Vodello (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was on the 40-man rosters of the Pirates and Blue Jays just this season. We currently determine that anyone on a 40-man roster is notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to delete but I'd be interested to know if there is an official policy or guideline about 40-man rosters or if that was just an opinion in some previous AFD. Ma^t_chups 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's been spelled out explicitly, but we've had the standard of creating an article for every player on a 40 man roster (all the people you see listed on Template:New York Yankees roster and all the other teams). If we're determining that these individuals are notable enough for an article when they're on the 40 man, they should still be notable even after they're DFA'd. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not consider the 40-man roster to be inherently notable. He could fall off of it and end up never playing a major league game or passing notability standards. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that means we should leave red links on those roster templates? You don't need to be promoted to MLB to be notable, and I think being added to a 40 man roster, a sign that the team sees something in you if they're using a limited resource on you, could easily be seen as a criteria for notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the players are listed on the minor league player articles, then the rosters will link to those and we won't have the red links. Spanneraol (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. I think this should be taken to WP:BASEBALL before a final decision on this AfD is made, since it will have implications for other similar players. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ATHLETE implies that playing at the MLB level is enough to make you notable. Being drafted consists of "using a limited resource," so I don't see that as a useful criterion. I'd rather not go down the slippery slope. If that means red links on the roster templates, so be it. Ma^t_chups 11:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On second thought, I think this should just be merged with the team's minor league players page. Alex (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is not a 'slippery slope' to have information on Wikipedia about a player on the 40-man roster of an MLB team. This is per prior existing consensus from WP:BASEBALL. I suggest a merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players for now, with the option of having this as a standalone article if it can be expanded to five or more paragraphs and supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Vodello (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why "five or more"? Where is that laid out in criteria? --Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. That's why it's called a suggestion. Vodello (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Vodello and consensus, do not delete. Secret ^account 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spent a few minutes expanding it. There are four reliable news articles, in addition to the typical B-Ref and Cube links. There are more recent ones that are Spanish language; I think he's playing in the Venezuelan Winter League right now. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three passing mentions and one that mentions him in a couple of sentences is not enough. Secret ^account 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bsadowski1, this is a housekeeping closure, article has already been speedily delete under CSD A1 by an admin. Non-admin closure as per WP:NACD. --Hongkongresident (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShawndaLynn Johnson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains many errors, including very scrambled info and no citations. Even the name may be scrambled ChckMeOwt (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been speedy deleted under CSD A1. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 04:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of 2011

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not surprisingly, this article is currently almost completely empty. I've no objection to this article being re-created next year, but it seems a little premature to have an article on the history of a future time (other than relating to a series of novels or films, say). Until January 1st it's destined to be either empty or crystalballsery. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it, its not a big problem if the article stays. No-one will take the duty of creating it again in 2011. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I said - it's blank, and it invites people to make unfounded predictions. As to no-one will be bothered to re-create it, you'd be surprised. There are at least three wikiprojects which cover global weather, and it's part of an ongoing series (e.g., Global storm activity of 2009, Global storm activity of early 2010). I seriously doubt that there won't be someone itching to create this as soon as January rolls round. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's way too early to create an article it specially when we don't know a single thing about it. As Grut said, this should be re-written next year otherwise it'll stay empty like a junkyard *no offense*. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The earth might be struck by a rogue planet and stripped of its atmosphere sometime in the next two months. (i.e. WP:Crystal ball) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of tropical cyclone names, which contains everything that can be said about 2011 for the next 2 months. There is the naming problem in that due to article size and prior history it should be "early 2011", and should presumably be later redirected to that name. (But even the series itself is poorly managed because both 2010 article time ranges do not match their leads.) Ordinarily I'd keep an empty fillable article just as an inclusionist, but unlike the AFD on 2026 reliable sources just don't comment about this; Googling "2011 storms" was surprisingly sterile. Delete is a backup vote because per the (scattershot) series we really don't need this exact title, but I generally prefer redirecting everything to something, even if it ignores WP:EGG. JJB 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Brown-Forman. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Garvin Brown III

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable person, limited coverage CTJF83 chat 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown-Forman, WP:BIO#Family. The company his great grandfather founded is notable. His great grandfather is notable. But he, by himself, is not.--hkr Laozi speak 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown-Forman, per Hkr and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aside from accounts that apparently only exist to !vote in this discussion, a consensus to delete is clear. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly S. Eustis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable partisan activist whose career seems to consist mostly of coming in last in a small-town election and feuding with a minimally notable talk radio personality. Most references are promotional or are mentions of the subject in passing, often in small-town newspapers. All substantive content appears to come from SPAs, raising the likelihood that socking's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody made a real effort, but still fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Small town newspapers don't count? Such as New York Times and POLITICO? Hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 75.45.10.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per past precedent at WP:OUTCOMES. This is a local activist who made some noise to become a person in the news, but hasn't gotten there yet. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely for a similar Upstater who is not yet ready for notability. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed small-town political candidate, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lots of references are provided but most are trivially local; he gets a few mentions in mainstream articles in Reliable Sources, but the articles are about the organization he was formerly associated with, the "America Deserves Better PAC". There is nothing actually about him, thus fails WP:GNG. The article seems like it exists mainly to promote his consulting firm. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete He was a young candidate, obviously influential in rising political movement, and will likely move on to better things besides bickering. Don't delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocpoliticalguy — Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete Even though I despise the kid in every way, I wouldn't want my article to be deleted. --MarkWilliamsTP (talk)
Delete Looks like this article is another bit of his polemics. No, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Not soapbox, and not for boosting someone's political or business career. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete If it's all factual, with press evidence to back up each claim, how does that boost a person's career? There's both good and bad stuff on here. Just don't understand your concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGOPer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — NYGOPer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The concept is explained here: WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are thin on the ground, mentioning Eustis only in passing or not at all. The votes in support look strongly like recruited proxy votes. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ That's ridiculous ("not at all"). Every article on there mentions him or else it wouldn't be there. Eustis is often the primary interviewee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm striking out your "Do not delete" here and below, since you "voted" that way already. You only get one "vote" - although you are welcome to comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The following sources do not mention Eustis at all: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. One [44] generated a "file not found" error. The interviews in which Eustis is the primary focus all seem to come from the Glens Falls Post-Star newspaper, whose interest is partly that Eustis is a local resident. All of this speaks poorly to his notability. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well delete other Republican consultants like Patrick Ruffini and Scott Howell then! Just doesn't make sense. This kid is referenced more than most others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think their articles don't fit Wikipedia's standards, please feel free to tag them or bring them to AfD. Somehow, I don't think you will..... Peridon (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ You've got to be joking. All except the one that goes to the OCDB website (since he left them, thus no longer listed, and could be removed as a reference) have Eustis answering questions or giving statements -- there's things called "pages" in articles. Some of the articles have up to four pages (POLITICO, NYT, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.10.249 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Eustis is mentioned only on the fourth or fifth page of a reference, then the reference should really use the URL for that page. Unfortunately, this doesn't really help the case for his notability, as it just confirms that these are all passing mentions of his name in articles on other subjects. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's obviously becoming notable. He's a consultant in a movement that is involved in one of the most historic elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Ocpoliticalguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - That may be true, but "becoming notable" isn't one of the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Being already notable is. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Just added a Boston Globe article that featured Eustis as a young, up-and-coming leader in the movement who is making a difference at the grassroots level... yes, folks, there are "small people" who are making waves. Plus I edited his dead references and fixed some things. I recommend no deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGOPer (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck - You cannot !vote multiple times. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I am clearly not seeing why this article should be deleted. It seems like a partisan act to destroy a reputation to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.19.191 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — 98.255.19.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete reading the sources almost all are only mentions or quotes by Eustis and the rest don't confer notability and the most significant things left are that he was an unsuccessful candidate for local public office and worked for the Tea Party Express until October 2009. That's not enough. Hekerui (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs all seem to be "in passing", and I see nothing that discusses the subject in any detail or demonstrates sufficient notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Movies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too broad a category..does it include minor witch roles? I just watched Snow White yesterday, and her stepmother is never called a witch. CTJF83 chat 03:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many articles could be included, very vague category. I like how the creator included a link to Webster's Dictionary as a reliable source. You can tell he's trying. :) --hkr Laozi speak 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a big unsourced trivia dump like "witches in popular culture" only even more narrow and unhelpful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. The consensus is to redirect until there is either significant coverage of Waugh at independent reliable sources, and/or until he wins the election -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Waugh

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rick Waugh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This one is open and shut. Ray^Talk 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ray this is not open and shut. Rick Waugh like his opponent Floyd Bayne is notable as he has been covered by all major media in the Virginia 7th district, has been reported in national news (Waugh covered by the Rachel Madow show) just like Floyd bayne has been covered by all major media in the district and national media (Bayne has also been covered in international media). So both candidates are notable. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not. He was nominated by party leaders [45]. This is the second time you have claimed someone was "elected" in a primary election when in fact they were not. Please get your facts straight before citing them here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per usual practice. The only article cited about him, in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, even describes him as "little-known". There's a reliable source telling us he is not notable! --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If 96.228.59.55 can provide links to all this coverage s/he claims, such as an appearance by Waugh on the Rachel Maddow show, I might change my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I never claimed Waugh was on the Rachel Maddow Show. I said his campaign was covered by the Rachel Maddow Show. His campaign was covered regarding his campaign signs being targeted with racial slurs. All You Had to do was SEARCH "RICK WAUGH RACHEL MADDOW" and walla http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/24/4963103-ugly-and-almost-misspelled-in-virginia Ray and others on wiki appear to be to lazy to do Google word search's 96.228.59.55 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the link. (And just a tip, you will get a lot further here by supplying links to support his notability - rather than name-calling others for not finding them.) The link appears to be from the Maddow BLOG, rather than the Maddow show, but it is still a hint toward more general notability. Have you got any more like that? --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. As with Bayne, he will be notable if he wins. The Eskimo (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Lets redirect this article. This candidate is less notable than Floyd Bayne is and hes the democrat. If you redirected Mr. Bayne's then you need to redirect Mr. Waugh.s Fair is Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyactivist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Libertyactivist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, Libertyactivist went ahead and redirected the article, even though this AfD discussion is still going on. The redirect was reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

the discussion seemed to be over and an administrator told me that anyone could do a redirect. Plus this article is just as notable or un-notable, depending on your opinion, or less notable than the Floyd Bayne article, so it should suffer the same fate. We need to move this process on. I hope nobody is trying to keep this article through the election but not the Bayne one. I would hope and pray no one would do thaton Wiki. I like wiki. Lots to learn:) Libertyactivist (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before participating in Afds. It's generally not proper to redirect an article during an open Afd. As far as closing, Afds usually last 7 days so you can expect this one to close very soon. Location (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla's Model Management

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage, and certainly no discussion of this agency anywhere--their only claim to fame seems to be their connection with Australia's Next Top Model. See this search, which unearths nothing that (in my mind) helps the subject pass WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete my vote is to weak delete, because it has few notability. Priscilla's is a sponsoring model agency of Australia's Next Top Model since the third series. Alice Burdeu is a most successful model and signed in that agency when she won the show back three years ago. Also, Chic Management (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Management), another Sydney model agent represented the first two series of the show, it has a sponsorship in another Top Model show, New Zealand's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Abbey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable event. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable enough to merit its own article (even a stub). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pepper

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of article that has already been deleted twice, the last time was when a "new user" copy/pasted the previously deleted article. As said at the previous AfD, self published work, blogs, and facebook accounts do not establish notability. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:GNG. I've tried to look for secondary reliable sources, but there are none. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need work, but it is a notable subject. Just needs some time. 7edde (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, AgadaUrbanit, and WP:BAND. No evidence of notability. JNW (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Google returns over 60,000 results for the band alone. And there have been multiple, country-wide concert tours and tours with other notable, billboard charting artists. 7edde (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, 7edde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who appeared right after the AfD was instituted and whose editing history also suggests he is the IP address that effectively voted "keep" above. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence things have significantly changed (or indeed changed at all) since the last deletion decision. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Should probably also be SALTed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and looks like (self?)-promotion attempt. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note that was my post under an IP address before having an account. 7edde (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (music). These guys have notable releases and toured the US. I'd like to help get the references up to par Jasonb80 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note additional citation has be added to the article. Jasonb80 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posts in publically-editable forums are not WP:RS, and blog entries that list the names of bands playing at minor venues does not establish Notability. If that were the case, every high school or college band would qualify for a Wikipedia article. There needs to be third party articles ABOUT the article subject that are written by mainstream media outlets; having ones name appear in a list of bands playing at a venue like "Foosian Village Art Festival" does not make one notable. So far, both Peter Pepper and the band he is sometimes associated with, have failed to produce WP:RS in Google and other searches. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but perhaps Mr. Pepper needs to gain a bit more fame and notarity before having his own Wikipedia article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National performances at concert venues with capacities over 1000 people such as House of Blues, the Masquerade and the like does establish Notability. Additionally, having completed one or more concert tours of a major world market also establishes Notability. And those tours being shared with other notable bands such as the Mindless Self Indulgence (held the #1 #2 and #5 positions, US Billboard Hot Singles Sales simultaneously), Combichrist (spent more than 6 weeks in the top 10 Hot Dance Billboard Charts) and others also establishes Notability. This article needs work, I agree, so I've added a Refimprove to the article and will continue to improve. Jasonb80 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Go on, then. Produce the goods and I'll turn. To a poster above - that's not 60,000 ghits for the band. There's a variety of chilli, '23 people in the UK', a company apparently named 'PETER PEPPER & DUSTY BIN', a character from BurgerTime (whatever the heck that is...) and Peter Pepper Products - all in the first three pages. One mention there for the band. This article. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note there are over 60,000 Google results for subject's music group "Retard-o-bot". 7edde (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142,000 on google.co.uk... The first 12 pages consisted entirely of what I feel are unreliable sources by Wikipedia (WP:RS. I gave up and returned to my tea then. WP:BURDEN Peridon (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cartoon_Network_Original_Series_and_Movies. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network's Big Pick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsorced, this article has no citations, no sources. Fails meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cartoon Network Original Series and Movies. Some animation showcases are considered notable if they've been on television for years (Oh Yeah! Cartoons comes to mind, remember watching that as a kid), but since this one was on for such a short while, a redirect would be appropriate.--hkr Laozi speak 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lingering Cartoon Network cruft from 2004 which has escaped scrutiny until now. With only two successful projects out of 14 (a 14% success rate) it's obvious the notability hasn't stayed around over the years, and there aren't any sources for this at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two out of forteen is hardly bad, considering the context. Usually, for animation showcases, or any showcases for television pilots, none of the shows get picked up. The fact that the showcase spawned two successful series is impressive. While I agree that it shouldn't be kept as a separate article, a redirect would be a much more viable option then simply deleting it. --hkr Laozi speak 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 18:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cartoon Network Original Series and Movies as a valid search term. The content of this article is unsourced, and thus fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, so I would not be opposed to a delete and redirect. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clearly don't meet our inclusion standard. If anyone wants to do the transwiki let m know and I will temp undelete for the purpose Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships in the Total Drama series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet general notability guidelines and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe listing the "romantic relationships" of the characters from a cartoon is not significant enough to warrant its own article. -WANINOKOZ ^(TALK) 00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete oh god, get rid of this before we get one for every other kids' cartoon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While fictional relationships can be notable, (even fan pairings), these relationships do not seem to be notable and would be better suited to Total Drama Wiki. Could it be transwikied there? --Malkinann (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, merge, and trim per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, merge and trim per the above, Sadads (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Sorry, I'm not the most experienced with Wikipedia yet. Does an admin take care of this? Or do we have to? -WANINOKOZ ^(TALK) 13:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article may need clean-up (and possibly renaming) - but these are not reasons for deletion. I suggest that a rename request be made on the article's talk page, and a discussion take place there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a collection of unreferenced esoteric data. In particular, it does not appear meet the Wikipedia guidelines for: 1) "Excessive listing of statistics" per WP:WWIN, 2) Verifiability (WP:V), 3) No Original Research (WP:NOR), and 4) WP N (in general). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP should be about articles to read, and other things (like lists etc.) supporting that. It's not for raw census data, by "not a directory." Or failing that some of the other policies cited above. Or by "WP:Don't waste your time writing an article you wouldn't want to read." Or by "WP:Readers are not stupid. You can not write an article without sources. If people want this information they can go to the same sources." -Steve Dufour (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ as unsourced and unverifiable. I recognize that, in 2006, information about the 1910 census might have been unavailable on the internet and that the author might have relied upon an old book for the numbers and just forgot to mention things like the title and publisher, but that's a lot of "might haves". I'd change my mind if someone could locate a source. Mandsford 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced, to the Révai nagy lexikona, a major encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the author wrote "Sources: Révai Nagy Lexikona", though that's not much different than writing, "Somewhere in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica". I guess the guy wasn't into things like page numbers and such. Looks like Gregory B has found something as noted below. Mandsford 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I just wanted to point out that the link GregorB has provided below is to a scanned PDF copy of the entire book Révai Nagy Lexikona. I believe your analogy to the source being "Somewhere in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica" is still very much true. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's pretty obvious that the source of this material is the 1910 national census, which would have been the last before the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I. Thus the rather esoteric date DOES have a significance. Should a better sourcing note have been made? Of course. Is this enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Not in my opinion. As we are well aware, nationality questions remain a burning topic in Europe and this strikes me as fully encyclopedia-worthy as topic and retention-worthy in terms of standing content. I'll put up a RESCUE banner in the hope that more definite sourcing materializes. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I certainly agree with you about the nationality questions in Europe and a Wikipedia article on the demographics of Hungary is definitely important. But there already is a well-written article about the Demographics of Hungary that contains data, analyses, references, etc., and also addresses the evolution of the demographics of Hungary through a long period of history. Given the existence of this article, I feel that the AfD (the Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary) does not have as much value as it would have if the article on the Demographics of Hungary did not exist (regardless of it being simply a list of data). - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing particularly "esoteric" about the data. It took me literally two minutes to find a possible online source: http://mek.oszk.hu/06700/06758/pdf/. Provided this could be used, there's no reason to delete. GregorB (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find. Each volume of the encyclopedia is imaged, and the search engine on the page will lead to what's inside a volume (for instance, type in "Abaúj-Torna" and it goes quickly to the article within Volume I). Google translate does have a function for Hungarian to English, so there's hope for someone to back the article up. Mandsford 15:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, thank you for posting the link to the scanned PDF copy of Révai nagy lexikona. I feel you took offense to my use of the word esoteric, and I would like to apologize for using it. I simply feel that the AfD is a list of data with no analysis. If the title of the article is something like "Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary (1720-1910)" I don't have a problem with it. This article, however, is titled as an "article" instead of a "list" and so it automatically gives the impression that it provides an exposition of the demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary with analysis based on the data. Also, there already is a good article on the Demographics of Hungary in the English Wikipedia.

Mandsford, you make good points about the search feature in PDF software combined with the use of Google Translate, but since plenty of references (citations) are needed for the various data in the article this would be truly a non-trivial task. I'm also not sure how we could comply with the policy on the use of non-English sources too (WP:NONENG), particularly "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." Perhaps a better solution would be for this article to be transferred to the Hungarian version of Wikipedia, where the source material can be used directly? Just a thought, please do comment. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no offense taken. "Esoteric" was perhaps simply not the most fortunate description. Two problems remain: the article's content does not correspond to its title (as duly noted by yourself - rename per Dream Focus below looks like a good idea), and it is effectively still unsourced. This is a big book and those are 100 Mb apiece PDFs, so just saying that it is "somewhere inside" is still not enough. I was hoping that Hungarian-speaking editors would be able to help. GregorB (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trying to argue that the demographics of a large European country are not notable or verifiable is not going to work. I'll agree that the article currently is an excessive listing of statistics and needs major cleanup, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The article just needs to emulate some of the better demographics articles, like Demographics of Switzerland. SnottyWong ^talk 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If someone's statement isn't verifiable, that's probably the main arguments in favor of getting rid of the statement, and it works every time. For all the numbers that got recited here, the article's author never seemed to take note of the "page number". Mandsford 21:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so get rid of the information that is not verifiable and replace it with information that is verifiable, which clearly exists. SnottyWong ^talk 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong, there already does exist an article on the Demographics of Hungary just like the one on the Demographics of Switzerland. The article I proposed for deletion is a complilation of historical census data, which has already been analyzed and incorporated in that form in the article on the Demographics of Hungary. In addition, I believe your proposal to get rid of unverifiable information and replace it with verifiable information cannot be readily accomplished because there appears to be only one accessible source for this information: a Hungarian encyclopedia. Using that as a source would likely be easy in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but would require plenty of translations for the English Wikipedia, and this is going to be difficult per WP:NONENG. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG only requires translations of direct quotations from sources, so is not an issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one has more information than the other one does. And its all based on the 1910 Census, plus is featured in a major printed encyclopedia. Call it the 1910 Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary if you wish. It is quite encyclopedic to list everything, instead of just eliminating valid information for the purpose of a shorter summarized version that makes up a small part of another article. Having year by year census data available for each country, would be quite useful for some who wish to access that information. WP:ALMANAC Dream Focus 23:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Being able to prove any of this would be even more useful. I can't imagine two users more diverse than Snotty Wong and Dream Focus, but they seem to be in agreement on this. No offense intended, both persons stand up for what they believe in. However, I'm amazed at how many people seem to assume the accuracy of the figures in here. This really needs to be userfied if someone is going to attempt a rescue. For anyone who is going to attempt what User:Ocsi should have done when he or she cranked this out, it's going to take awhile. It's not impossible, but downloading even one of the volumes, and even at high speed, takes awhile, after which search can be done for the 1910 language census using various terms. Mandsford 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like something more suitable at Wikisource? There is no discussion about the statistics (nor should there be, probably) so other than a bit of fancy formatting, there isn't any particular encyclopedic content. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (I will just comment on your comment without starting a new comment.) The article starts out: "This article is about the demographic development of the Kingdom of Hungary during a time period between 1715 and 1910." But all it contains is data for 1910, nothing about development.-Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I think the topic is worthy for inclusion, but in it's current form it is just an extensive list of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should rename it, because Demographics of Hungary page does exist (e.g. 1910 Census data for the Kingdom of Hungary)or the matter of article should be inserted into Demographics of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC) It contains well detailed informations about Hungarian counties around 1910. It is worthy.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chia N Mustafa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating AfD on behalf of 109.127.71.33. Please add your reasoning below. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless the IP adds reasoning for deletion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, in the absence of a deletion rationale. I imagine the concern was notability, but sources added since the AFD began hint at some moderate notability. It is thin, granted, but it's there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete within seven days AGFing here on the IP's part in the discussion, but I'd imagined that this article qualifies for WP:BLPPROD as there are no significant coverage available for this BIO (no mention can be found about the subject in question in the references purported in the article). :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are for his father, and notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to verify notability. In cases like these, I would also be OK with a merge and redirect to Nawshirwan Mistefa. Location (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, noting that the sources are thinner than they appeared at first glance. Switching over from Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fray (Internet forum)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web forum. I have looked, but the reliable, independent sources that would justify this article simply aren't there. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there seems to have been another AfD for this subject here. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slate (magazine). I don't think the forums are independently notable enough to merit a separate article, but the content should be merged into the Slate article where it belongs. Neither the Slate article or the Fray article have size concerns, so a merge shouldn't be a problem.--hkr Laozi speak 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Even a notable website shouldn't have a seperate article for its individual parts. Also, the article is very poor and it's not even made clear whether the subject still exists or not: it mentions that it was shut down in 1999 but also says it was overhauled in 2007. Basically hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From WP:DRV, outcome was to restore, and send to AFD. Procedural nom. No opinion expressed on notability by nominator. Here for a discussion and assessment, from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I cant find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would confer the level of notability we require. Sure, he has some community awards and a few brief mentions in news articles, but he hasn't been the subject of the vast majority of those. I don't think he's quite there yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline does not mandate that the individual be the main focus of sources, only that the sources speak of him directly and in some detail. Past this, some of the sources do indeed have this individual as the main topic being discussed. I believe we can take these, add to them the ones where he is spoken of but not the main focus, and grant that he has his notability, even if only to the many millions in the Toronto metropolitan and Ontario surrounding areas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Toronto Star [46], Toronto Star [47] and Barrie Advance [48] sources are good enough, along with the various CBC News mentions [49] [50]. Since the first three sources are not trivial and do focus on Nguyen and his website, and he has won the Paul Yuzyk award, the entry meets WP:BIO.--hkr Laozi speak 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the non-trivial coverage in the three sources listed by the user above me, the guy appears to meet WP:BIO, specifically the WP:BASIC subsection. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dylan. What little notability there is seems to be entirely local. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is sufficiant to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Being Canada's economic capital and the fifth most populous municipality in North America, Toronto is not exactly some low-population or little-heard-of backwater. Further, Toronto is the heart of Ontario's film and television industry, and this individual has received the attention of his peers and coverage in multiple reliable sources.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/12/26/12269826-sun.html

http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html

http://www.rcinet.ca/english/column/the-link-s-top-stories/multiculturalism-award-winner/

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/01/unsolved-murder-rate-runs-843.html

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/10/mayoral-candidates-debate.html

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/2010/08/06/torontos-six-most-memorable-neighbourhood-naming-smackdowns/

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563486

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1IEqBz.chR0&refer=canada

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=2e9fa45a-99b9-4918-a372-0ec3234e4e9a&k=52736

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228975

http://www.rrj.ca/m4093/

http://www.simcoe.com/article/48650

http://www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/documents/guns-crime-Can-ccjAug09.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.ua/canada/en/news/detail/41780.htm
Wikipedia does not expect coverage to be world-wide, and news coverage to many millions does not equate to being "local" to some few hundreds. Notable to Canada is plenty notable enough for en.Wikipedia. I am convinced through available sources that any concerns with the article are best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMSDroid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources for this article are the site of a closely affiliated project, and a single blog post. I looked but couldn't find anything better. Given the lack of reliable sources, this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obscure product lacking any media coverage. The user's account was created purely to write about this product, so a conflict of interest is suspected.--hkr Laozi speak 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not finding any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ross Holmes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ex-actor and businessman; most of the sources are not about him; fails due to ignoring WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

I have just posted on your talk page. I am still editing this article and I hope that writing content that is currently only linked to in the external links, will demonstrate the notability of Mr Holmes

Thanks

Bensomersethow (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable businessman per OrangeMike notability is not inherited. Mo ainm~Talk

Comment. I'm one of two admins who have been discussing this article with Bensomersethow (talk) (the other being Jimfbleak (talk)). I initially became involved after I declined a CSD request. I'm not yet convinced that the article's subject is notable enough for an article: it would seem to me that a stronger case could be made for the Edinburgh International Marketing Festival, which Thomas Ross Holmes founded. However, this festival is part of the Edinburgh Fringe rather than the main Festival, so maybe, maybe not. Thomas Ross Holmes also founded Creativebrief, which "connects buyers and sellers of marketing services". There's no article for Creativebrief, either, and I'm not convinced that they'd necessarily be notable enough for an article. Finally, the article's creator is an employee of the article's subject. I hadn't realised that until just now, but Jimfbleak clearly had. Ben, you do need to be aware of Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy. TFOWR 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Thanks for the further guidance. I mentioned upon my first contact with Jim that I was at creativebrief, and I hope this does not stand in the way of the article remaining published. I have edited the 'entrepreneur' section and hope that this helps assessing the notability of Mr Holmes.

Kind regards

Bensomersethow (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and the obvious WP:COI issues here cannot be ignored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Invisible Detective. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Time (Justin Richards novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book as per WP:BK Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Invisible Detective. There's nothing notable about this book (or the others in the series that have their own articles) and the parent article could easily be expanded to accommodate the plot synopses. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. That plot summary sure reads like it's off the back cover, and is likely a copyvio, so there's nothing to merge. Reviews might be found, so recreation/expansion should be left open. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add a link to Invisible Detective on the disambiguation page Killing Time, then delete the original entry, since it's high dubious that anyone searching for the entry will type out the full "Killing Time (Justin Richards novel)" name.--hkr Laozi speak 05:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article for the series. The book is not independently notable--in only about 200 libraries, a/c worldcat, which is trivial for a children's novel.Personally, I would like to revise our rules for fiction to indicate that the default way of handling series books like this is an article for the series, and anything more requires very strong proof of substantial notability. Our problem is that we talk as if we have only the two exclusive classes notable|nonnotable --actually, we can deal with somewhat finer distinctions by combination articles and inclusion on lists. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderground (newspaper)

http://wunderground.wustl.edu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.68 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student "satire newspaper." No evidence that this is notable. No independent sources to establish notability. Oh yeah, and having an ISSN number does mean diddly. GrapedApe (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student activity at a single school, not even worth a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation fetish

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept; could not extend beyond dictionary definition only Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago it was a very thorough article, though it lacked references. Today it's pretty useless, I agree. It doesn't really matter what's decided here, since 98% of the article's content has already been deleted. ^L_Wizard @ 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete virtually no content and what is there is a silly "furry" drawing and a stealth link to a sex site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo transformation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic, no sources to support more than a dictionary definition Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Bunch of original research regarding some bizarre fetish. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this fetish exists, but doesn't appear to be the subject of study the way, say, foot fetishism has. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yes, Eagles, Narthring and Jimmy are right in their arguments - and I might have agreed with them had I voted. But with respect to this AfD, I find no consensus for a delete vote, assuming good faith on the ip vote... Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Simonds

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATH, never played professionally, does not meet WP:GNG either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he gets picked up by another team and plays, the article can be recreated, but right now his career is not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like he's definitely cleared the bar on WP:GNG to me, there's a lot of articles that come up just in the "news" link above--granted, some regional and local coverage but some national coverage as well. While he's certainly not getting the "Free pass" that WP:ATHLETE grants, there's enough other sources and coverage here to warrant an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't locate sources that would pass WP:GNG. If some were brought forward I would change my !vote. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets general notabliliy guidelines. He is a two time Patriot League first team receiver,a Sporting News third team FCS All-America, and was selected to the 2010 East-West Shrine Game (which has its own article). Both his senior season total of 14 receiving touchdowns and 28 career touchdowns rank second among Patriot League players.

Moreover, national wire reports of Colgate results generally include his name and statistics. He received a fair amount of attention as a potentially draftable FCS star. These reports increased greatly with his Shrine game selection and workouts preceding the NFL draft. There is a fairly extensive profile of his ability at http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1635212, along with many discussions of his draft status elsewhere. This does not include local or regional reports of his achievements, which are quite prevalent and detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.27.66 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting invited to the East-West Shrine Game (considered second to the Senior Bowl) does not make him notable. CBS Sports has a draft profile on almost every senior in the nation, so this, too, does not make him notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National news wires reporting his statistics do not improve his notability, see number 4 here. Narthring (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cooper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG, never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just finding a lot of independent articles about the last three football nominations for deletion. The nationwide coverage looks good enough to me to warrant articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH since he never played professionally. I haven't found any non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability according to the general notability guidelines either. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCertainly notable in my opinion.Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One reference from a Trenton, NJ paper merely includes his name on a list of names of players drafted by the team. The other reference is entirely about someone else. Perhaps the main point of the article, as written, is to tell the story of how he proposed to his wife. It's sweet and all, but not notable, nor is the potential career of this college athlete. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't yet played professionally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.